Oral
Answers to
Questions

JUSTICE

The Secretary of State was asked—

Courts Digitisation Programme

Chi Onwurah: What recent assessment he has made of the effect on access to justice of the courts digitisation programme.

Paul Maynard: Enhancing access to justice is at the heart of our £1 billion court reform programme. Our new online district services provide an easily accessible, intuitive route for people to bring cases to court. Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service is testing, learning and inducting online services, based on feedback from the people who use them. More than 150,000 people used our services in 2018 and public feedback has been extremely positive.

Chi Onwurah: Unfortunately, this Government are developing a track record of using digital technology not to improve services and empower people, but to cut costs and exclude people, so will the Minister commit to me now that he will ensure that the digitally excluded, especially the homeless, detainees and prisoners, have special access to support services; that access to legal aid will be clearly signposted online for the digital courts; and that the feedback and performance data—showing who is using these services, where and when—is publicly shared, so that we can measure whether the programme really is a success?

Paul Maynard: I am grateful for the hon. Lady’s question. I am intuitively sympathetic to all the points that she makes. I am very clear that there should always remain a telephone service, a paper-based service for those who need it, and the appropriate signposting. Inclusive justice is very important and we should never innovate merely because we can. We do not use new technologies merely because we can, but because they give a better outcome for the people who use our justice system.

Stephen Crabb: When it comes to the digitisation of the probate service, the Minister should be aware that constituents are still coming to me, reporting delays of up to 10 or 12 weeks before they receive probate. They are having to negotiate automated email replies and phone lines that are too busy to handle calls. What can he say today to give relief to my constituents and others who are affected, following the death of a loved one?

Paul Maynard: My right hon. Friend has cleverly anticipated question 15. I have heard from Members across the House the deep frustration they feel regarding the current issues in the probate system. Delays had reached as long as eight weeks last month. We have put in place a number of measures to try to reduce the overall waiting time. It is now back down to roughly six to seven weeks, but that is still not good enough. We are now clearing the number of outstanding cases by about 1,000 a day, and I hope that the backlog can be cleared in around two to three months.

Andrew Slaughter: Is not the truth that what is happening at the moment is a restriction on access to justice, because almost half the courts in the country have been closed? Will the Minister follow what the Association of Her Majesty’s District Judges has said, and put a moratorium on court closures until the digitisation programme—£200 million over budget, spending £70 million on consultants—is seen to work?

Paul Maynard: I very much hear what the hon. Gentleman is telling me. He will recall a debate that we had in this Chamber a couple of weeks ago on that point. We have no plans to close any further courts at the moment, but he will recognise that there is a need to make sure that our court estate is used appropriately, and he will recognise that where court buildings are not used, or indeed are used for less than half the time for which they could be available, we have to look at making sure that what we do in our courts best meets the needs of our estate and of the people using our courts system.

Yasmin Qureshi: Last year, the Government made a huge fanfare about their female offenders strategy but announced only £5 million for it. Recently, legal aid was increased by £8 million, but that pales into insignificance compared with £67 million spent on consultants to provide cuts to our courts. Instead of throwing money at the consultants, surely there should be a proper debate in this House on the Government’s disastrous court closure programme.

Paul Maynard: When I speak to most sensible people across the entire justice system, there is a recognition that our justice system has to modernise. If we do not transform or modernise the system, the service will become increasingly unsustainable and will deliver a progressively worse service for the people for whom I know the hon. Lady wants to get the best outcomes possible—I do too. If we do not modernise, our district system will not be able to maintain that level of service.

Benefit Application Appeal Tribunal Hearings

Philip Hollobone: What recent estimate he has made of the average waiting time for benefit application appeal tribunal hearings in (a) Northamptonshire and (b) England.

Paul Maynard: Between January and March 2019,  the average waiting time for benefit appeals in Northamptonshire was 21 weeks. In England, it was 33 weeks.

Philip Hollobone: Too many of my Kettering constituents are having to wait far too long for their appeals to be heard when their benefit applications are turned down. The Minister has read out average figures, but some of the waits are over 30 weeks. What can he do to speed up the appeals process in Kettering?

Paul Maynard: I was almost disappointed that my hon. Friend did not phrase his first question better, because I was going to go on to tell him that in Kettering, the waiting time was actually 33 weeks, which is comparable to the England average—12 weeks longer than that in Northamptonshire. If I may anticipate the further follow-up question that he might have liked to ask, in Kettering we are making new venues available, particularly in Wellingborough and Northamptonshire, and we have added three judges, eight disability qualified tribunal panel members and two medically qualified tribunal panel members to try to reduce waiting times in his constituency.

Jamie Stone: rose—

John Bercow: No, no, no, no, no, no. Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross is not only not in Northamptonshire; it is not in England! It really is stretching the point. Oh, very well. If the hon. Gentleman wants to make a pertinent inquiry appertaining to Northamptonshire, in which no doubt he has the deepest interest, or relating to England, I will give him the benefit of the doubt.

Jamie Stone: You are very gracious, Mr Speaker. Benefits actually cover the whole UK and I represent the furthest-away constituency in the UK mainland. Delays in decision making are troublesome to say the very least. The problem as I see it is that the key decision makers are not actually based in Wick, where there are excellent staff, but much further south. Would it not be a good idea if we moved key decision makers closer to people in need?

John Bercow: That is a very cheeky piece of shoehorning.

Paul Maynard: I am presuming that the hon. Gentleman is encouraging me to have more tribunals in Wick, as opposed to decision makers. Since I have 3,000 employed in my own constituency making key decisions on personal independence payments, I do not think we should move to Wick. None the less, there is a lack of tribunals in his constituency. We will have to hear further information from him as to how we can improve accessibility there.

John Bercow: In relation to the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone), the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) just chuntered from a sedentary position, “Yes, but he’s a nice guy.” Well, I think we can all agree about that.

Prison Staff: Health and Safety

Grahame Morris: What assessment he has made of the adequacy of health and safety for prison staff.

Liz Twist: What assessment he has made of the adequacy of health and safety for prison staff.

Robert Buckland: Keeping our prisons safe, both for the dedicated staff working in them and for the men and women in our custody, is our top priority. Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service continually assesses the risks to staff in our prisons, putting in suitable measures and controls. The effectiveness of those controls is monitored locally and nationally, and through joint audit work with prison unions.

Grahame Morris: I thank the Minister for that reply, but it must be of concern to the whole House when the Ministry of Justice’s own figures show that violence against prison staff is at a record high. There were almost twice as many assaults in 2018 as there were in 2010. Does the Minister agree that everyone working in our prison system, whether as a prison officer, an educator, a nurse or anything else, should have an absolute right to a safe workplace, safe from violent assaults? Will he support the joint trade union “Safer Inside” campaign to secure that objective?

Robert Buckland: The hon. Gentleman raises an important point and he is right to alert us to the day-to-day bravery of prison staff in whatever part of the prison estate they work. A lot of work is going on to improve how prison staff interact with prisoners, and the Assaults on Emergency Workers (Offences) Act 2018 allows the courts to impose greater sentences to deal with assault. I will look very carefully at the proposals that are being set out tomorrow and work with Members across the House to ensure that we rise to the challenge of prison violence.

Liz Twist: Sexual assaults against prison staff have soared by 360% since 2010—a shocking statistic that the Government should be ashamed of. Does the Minister agree that the recent attack that saw a prisoner ejaculate over a female officer should be treated as a sexual assault —and a serious sexual assault at that—and be prosecuted as such?

Robert Buckland: The hon. Lady raises a very interesting point. While I think it would be invidious of me to comment on a particular case, I can see the force of her point. That is quite clearly a very serious assault and there are aggravating features in there, which make it particularly distressing for the worker involved. As I said, a lot of important work is going on with regard to body-worn cameras and we need the roll-out of PAVA spray to help protect prison officers who, let us face it, are doing such an important job that is all too often unheralded.

Robert Courts: The use of psychoactive substances is regrettably on the rise in prisons and has an effect on behaviour. What are the Government doing to tackle that?

Robert Buckland: My hon. Friend raises an important point. Indeed, the service has started research on the effects on prison staff of second-hand exposure to psychoactive substances, in particular across 10 prisons.  That testing programme will be extended. We have also established a drugs taskforce, because the best way to deal with the risk is to minimise the use of drugs in prisons. That is a tough challenge, but one that the whole service is working towards.

Imran Hussain: Teachers, nurses, cleaners and many others are a vital part of our prison workforce. However, alongside prison officers, they are exposed to the dangers of the prison estate, which the prisons inspector just today has stated contains too much violence, drug use and inactivity, and frankly remains in a state of emergency. Staff have the right to work in a safe environment that is free from violence, abuse and danger, but violence against staff is reaching record highs. Will the Justice Secretary commit today to meeting the teachers I met earlier, and who are in the Gallery to hear his answers, to ensure the safety of all our staff in our prisons?

Robert Buckland: I am always interested in meeting staff from across the prison estate, and that includes the teachers who are here today. The hon. Gentleman is right to highlight Peter Clarke’s important report. That report contains significant findings relating to the ongoing challenges, but it also celebrates the professionalism, the caring and the well-run safe, calm parts of our prison estate that exemplify a successful history and pattern of working. I was delighted to be able to attend the prison officer of the year awards last week to acknowledge some of the outstanding service given by prison officers and other employees in HMPPS.

Divorce

Eddie Hughes: What steps the Government are taking to encourage divorcing couples to reconcile.

Desmond Swayne: What steps his Department is taking to provide counselling to couples seeking a divorce.

David Gauke: When people make the difficult decision to divorce, the evidence suggests that counselling will often be too late at that stage. Seeking counselling would be a personal choice for those involved. For counselling to bring a change of direction, it would require the willing co-operation of both people in the marriage. We will look at the information available to people who are contemplating divorce to see whether we can strengthen signposting to marriage counselling, and our Bill will provide the opportunity for parties to reflect on the decision to divorce by introducing a minimum timeframe within the legal process. Couples who can reconcile will be able to do so.

Eddie Hughes: Now that divorce is being made easier, with no-fault divorce going on the statute book, should we have parallel provision to help couples to save their marriages? I think the best way to do that would be further investment in services under section 22 of the Family Law Act 1996.

David Gauke: I think there is a wider debate to be had about how Government as a whole can address issues that lead to relationship breakdown. Simply funding marriage support services may not address the heart of  the issue or reach the people who need help most at the right time, but I agree that there is a need to test what works to help couples to stay together, and I am happy to listen to the arguments about that.

Desmond Swayne: What mediation services and contact centres are available, and what is their role?

David Gauke: Family mediation offers a way to resolve child or financial arrangements without litigation, and child contact centres provide safe, neutral venues where separated couples can build sustainable long-term child arrangements. In reforming the legal process for divorce, we will look to strengthen how couples are signposted to such services. My right hon. Friend refers to counselling, a service for people whose relationships are in trouble. As well as using services such as Relate, many people draw on family, friends and others they can trust. A marriage is more likely to be saveable before the legal process of divorce has begun.

Jim Shannon: Can the Minister outline what discussions have been held about offering support for counselling through charitable initiatives such as Relate to cut down waiting times from eight weeks? During that time many couples decide that their issues are irrevocable when in fact they might have been salvageable with help and support.

David Gauke: As I said earlier, there is a wider debate on this matter. I believe that the earlier such support can be provided, the better. When it comes to reform of divorce law, my argument is that by that stage it is often too late. In any event, the current requirement in our divorce law to attribute blame and fault makes it all the harder for marriages to be reconciled.

Peter Bottomley: I think my right hon. Friend and the Government have got the approach right. Divorce is not the time to start putting difficulties in people’s way. When people get married, they know it is going to end in desertion, divorce or death; on the whole, death is the one we would choose, but preferably not as a result of too active participation by the other half.
May I reinforce what my right hon. Friend said, and ask him whether he will try to make it better known, not just in his Department but in others, that if people can get into stable households, all sorts of things go better? Poverty is reduced, anguish is reduced, life is extended and people have better lives, so times of family formation, reformation and even de-formation can lead to a better life for most people.

David Gauke: I do agree with my hon. Friend, and I am interested by the insights into the Bottomley household. The fact that our current divorce laws introduce conflict at the point of divorce can make the break-up of relationships more confrontational than it needs to be in what are already difficult circumstances.

John Bercow: I believe that the hon. Gentleman has been married for 52 years.

Peter Bottomley: In sickness and in health.

John Bercow: I believe that to be so. [Interruption.]

John Bercow: And Lady Bottomley says so as well, as the hon. Gentleman pertinently observes from a sedentary position.

Short Sentences

Patrick Grady: What assessment his Department has made of the effectiveness of sentences of less than three months in reducing reoffending.

David Gauke: There is persuasive evidence that short custodial sentences do not work for the purposes of rehabilitation and helping some offenders to turn their backs on crime. They are highly disruptive to people’s lives, and provide little time for the Prison Service to do any meaningful rehabilitative work. In certain circumstances, community sentences are more effective in reducing reoffending and addressing offenders’ needs. Unless we tackle the underlying causes of reoffending, we cannot protect the public from being victims of crime. There is a strong case for abolishing short custodial sentences, with some exceptions, and I shall set out proposals shortly.

Patrick Grady: The Secretary of State will be pleased to know that 85% of those who responded to the Scottish Government’s consultation supported the existing presumption against short sentences, and were in favour of extending that beyond the current three-month presumption. Given that that presumption has helped to achieve a 19-year low in reconviction rates, I hope he agrees with the outcome of the consultation. Perhaps he will also tell us exactly what “shortly” means, and exactly when the UK Government intend to follow the Scottish Government’s lead on these matters, as they should on so many others.

David Gauke: “Shortly” means “shortly”. [Laughter.] I am not going to elaborate on that, but I will say that in considering sentencing reform it is necessary also to look more broadly at the probation system. That is why I recently announced proposals to reform probation that will inform offender management and strengthen confidence in probation. However, I advise the hon. Gentleman to watch this space.

Bob Neill: I welcome the link that my right hon. Friend has made between sentencing and probation. Does he agree that one of the compelling arguments in favour of reform is that the vast majority of people who are given short sentences tend to be repeat petty offenders whose behaviour is often driven by a number of factors such as drug addiction, debt, alcoholism and mental health issues—which are not and cannot best be treated in a custodial setting—and that we ought to invest far more in treating those people effectively outside, in the interests of public protection as much as anything else?

David Gauke: I entirely agree with the Chairman of the Justice Committee. If we put people inside for a short time—for instance, prolific shoplifters—we want to address that criminality, but all that we actually do is make them more likely to reoffend and continue to be prolific criminals. Evidence shows that when it comes to reoffending rates, community sentences work better, but we need to do everything we can to ensure that they can be improved.

Ellie Reeves: In the past five years, more than 300,000 prison sentences of less than a year have been handed out, but the reoffending rate among that cohort is a staggering 64.4%. The Justice Committee has repeatedly called for the abolition of short custodial sentences. I appreciate that the Secretary of State is sympathetic to that call—I note his answer to an earlier question— but may we please have swift and urgent action?

David Gauke: I agree with the hon. Lady’s point about the statistics—we should be led by the evidence—and I hope to make further progress on this matter in the time that is left ahead.

Victoria Prentis: I very much hope that a large amount of time is left to my right hon. Friend, who has been a truly reforming Secretary of State in this area, and I endorse everything said on this question by my fellow members of the Select Committee on Justice. However, does the Secretary of State agree that it is very important that if we do have community sentences they are robust and well enforced? Given that the original question was asked by a Scottish MP, I am conscious of the fact that one in three community payback orders in Scotland are ignored by criminals.

David Gauke: My hon. Friend is right to highlight that point, and much though I believe that we should make rapid progress in this area, I think that we should do so in a way that ensures the system works properly, and I do think that the link with, for example, strengthening community sentences and the way the probation system works is very important. I hope that we are moving in a direction whereby we can make progress and we focus on ensuring that these prolific petty offenders do not reoffend and we are led by the evidence on what is the most effective way to achieve that, and my sense is that there is a large cross-party consensus on this point.

Jenny Chapman: When the Secretary of State decided to bring back 80% of community rehabilitation company activity into the National Probation Service that was welcome news, and I thank him for that, but he has left the community payback and accredited programmes in a different place. If he does not intend to bring that back into the core service, too, will he at least commit to having it commissioned as locally as possible?

David Gauke: Again, we have been led by the evidence. Offender management is not working as we need it to work with regard to the CRCs, but some of the other activity CRCs do is done very well: there is good innovation and good measures are taken, and we should recognise that. So I believe the private and voluntary sectors have a significant role to play, but it is different from the role played until now. In terms of commissioning and so on, I believe we need to ensure that reflects local circumstances and that is part of our plans.

Prisoners: Access to Work

Dr Caroline Johnson: What steps the Government are taking to increase opportunities for prisoners to access work before they are released.

Mark Pawsey: What steps the Government are taking to increase opportunities for prisoners to access work before they are released.

Daniel Kawczynski: What steps the Government are taking to increase opportunities for prisoners to access work before they are released.

Robert Buckland: A year ago, our education and employment strategy set out plans to transform the way prisoners develop the skills they need to secure employment on release, and in addition our new release on temporary licence framework aims to increase the number of people these opportunities are available to by allowing more prisoners to access it sooner and for longer.

Dr Caroline Johnson: I pay tribute to companies such as Timpson that are leading the way in employing ex-offenders. Which other companies is my hon. and learned Friend working with on this issue?

Robert Buckland: I am delighted to say that large companies such as Greene King from the catering and hospitality sector and Wates from the construction sector are now working with the new futures network that was set up last year to bring more employers, large and small, into partnerships with prisons.

Mark Pawsey: Futures Unlocked is a charity in my constituency with a community café supported by Warwickshire police and crime commissioner Philip Seccombe. It gives work experience to people who have just completed a prison term and has just been awarded the Queen’s award for voluntary service. That is a great example of opportunities that can be offered after release, but what can be done beforehand?

Robert Buckland: I join my hon. Friend in supporting Futures Unlocked and extend my congratulations to it on receiving the Queen’s award, and my hon. Friend is right to talk about what can be done beforehand. It is about building confidence, and that is why the new futures network that I mentioned, which brokers partnerships with employers to provide opportunities before release, will be crucial if we are to extend the benefit of this scheme and reduce reoffending.

Daniel Kawczynski: There is still some reticence among certain companies to employ ex-offenders. The Minister has highlighted some of the real success stories in the private sector where companies have specifically hired ex-offenders in a very effective way. What is his Department doing to showcase those success stories, to ensure that more companies follow this important goal?

Robert Buckland: My hon. Friend is right to talk about changing the culture. A number of companies are quite openly employing ex-offenders. Also, the Ban the Box initiative, which is all about encouraging companies to employ people with previous offences and removing the tick-box exercise, is supported within the Government and increasingly in the wider business community. I attended an event with the creative industries only three weeks ago to highlight that important initiative.

Barry Sheerman: But the Minister will know that what prisoners need is not only to have been prepared and had training while they are in prison but to have the full monty when they leave. They need housing, an opportunity to work and the full support of a good probation service, as was said by the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill), the Chairman of the Select Committee. Does the Minister realise, however, that when people who are found not guilty following a miscarriage of justice come out of prison, they get nothing?

Robert Buckland: The hon. Gentleman refers to miscarriages of justice. The prison system is there to deal with the prisoners in front of it, whatever might have happened with the case or proceedings they were involved with. However, he is absolutely right to talk about the need for housing. I am particularly interested in the £6.4 million initiative from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, which is working with Bristol, Leeds and Pentonville prisons to support released prisoners into accommodation. I am sad to say that there is a correlation between the lack of secure accommodation and the return to offending.

Gregory Campbell: Does the Minister acknowledge that this sort of practice has been going on for some years in prisons such as Magilligan Prison in my constituency and that it is replicated in other prisons? Does he agree that the practice should be shared right across the United Kingdom and that it will, we hope, lead to a reduction in reoffending rates?

Robert Buckland: I am interested to hear the example that the right hon. Gentleman gives in the Northern Irish prison that he represents. The Through the Gates service, which deals with employment, housing and benefit support, is crucial if we are to reduce reoffending, and the Government are investing an extra £22 million a year in prisons in England and Wales. I am working actively with my colleagues in the Department for Work and Pensions to improve early access to universal credit.

Legal Advice Deserts

Sandy Martin: What steps his Department has taken to tackle legal advice deserts.

Paul Maynard: After the latest Legal Aid Agency civil tender, the number of offices providing legal aid services has increased by 7% in the areas of housing and debt. The Legal Aid Agency reviews the access to services on a regular basis and takes any necessary action to maintain access to those services.

Sandy Martin: As the east of England is the region with the highest percentage of population with no providers of housing legal aid, and as Ipswich is in the centre of the housing legal aid desert that covers  the whole of Suffolk and most of north Essex, will the Minister agree to meet me and the director of the Suffolk Law Centre to discuss what can be done to address this housing legal aid desert?

Paul Maynard: I anticipated that the hon. Gentleman might ask about his local situation. Although a contract was awarded in Ipswich in the last tender, we are waiting for the provider to advise us that it has managed to recruit staff to provide advice. We are aware that this will be restricting access, and we will shortly consider re-tendering the service. I am more than happy to meet the hon. Gentleman to discuss this further.

Julia Lopez: Public confidence in the legal aid system is often determined by high-profile cases such as the inquests into the Manchester bombing and the London Bridge attacks, in which the taxpayer funded the legal fees of the public authorities and, in the case of London Bridge, the widow of one of the terrorists, but not the victims of the attack. Many people feel instinctively that this is not right, so what work is the Minister doing to build confidence in the justice of the current system so that the victims of terror do not face their own legal advice desert?

Paul Maynard: I certainly hear what my hon. Friend says. Our thoughts will always be with those who have lost loved ones in any terror attack. Our review of legal aid shows that bereaved families do not need specific legal representation at the vast majority of inquests. It is important to ensure that these inquests remain inquisitorial, but what is known as equality of arms has to be a key consideration, as we know from Dame Elish Angiolini’s report. I am therefore working closely with my officials to look at what more can be done to help those families who are in an inquest situation.

Richard Burgon: This month marks 70 years since the post-war Labour Government introduced the Legal Aid and Advice Act 1949. Tory cuts have decimated access in recent years, and those cuts alone mean 90,000 families denied legal aid for benefits challenges—a move that the United Nations criticised—and 50,000 families denied housing legal aid, letting rogue landlords off the hook, as well as tens of thousands left facing the “hostile environment” without legal support. Labour has committed to restoring legal aid for all family law, for housing, for benefits appeals, for judicial review preparation, for inquests and for real action on immigration cases. Will the Minister mark the 70th anniversary of legal aid by committing to return any of those?

Paul Maynard: As we survey the decaying embers of a dying regime reaching its inevitable conclusion, it is good to see the shadow Secretary of State showing that he is waving and not drowning, as he desperately tries to draw attention to the fact he is full of vim and vigour. As he will know, we are currently reviewing legal aid thresholds and exceptional case funding. We are bringing special guardianship orders back within the scope of legal aid, and we are looking at legal support action plans.
I am unclear, the more I listen to Labour Front Benchers, about why they assume that the only way to provide legal support is to fund it through legal aid. We will shortly have a question on law centres and, for me, there have to be a number of ways to provide legal support.  [Interruption.] “And for us,” I hear the hon. Gentleman say from a sedentary position, and I am pleased to hear that.

Probation Reform

David Hanson: What recent progress he has made on probation reform.

David Gauke: I am pleased to have announced plans to streamline probation delivery, through the National Probation Service, to build on the role of the private and voluntary sectors in driving innovation and to better support skilled probation officers. These changes will allow the public, private and voluntary sectors to play to their strengths and ensure stronger supervision and support for offenders. We are now developing the commercial and operational frameworks that will underlie the future system, and we are planning for the transition. We are undertaking a full programme of market engagement to inform our plans, in addition to engagement with probation staff and trade unions.

David Hanson: By any stretch of the imagination, the changes to the probation service have been a shambles, fragmenting the system and increasing risk to the community at large. A simple “sorry” may also help the Minister’s answer, but will he give an indication of  the cost of cancelling the current contracts next year? What will be the replacement costs for the state or other providers in taking over those services?

David Gauke: First, “Transforming Rehabilitation” introduced bold reforms, and steps have been taken to ensure there is more innovation within our system, but I recognise that significant elements of it are not working as needed, which is why we have made the changes.
On the right hon. Gentleman’s point about costs, it is worth bearing in mind that we originally expected to spend £3.1 billion on community rehabilitation companies over a seven-year period, and we now expect to spend £2.7 billion over the same period. In other words, over the lifetime of the contracts, we now expect to spend £405 million less on CRCs than originally forecast.

Sarah Newton: Probation works best when working with local partners. A brilliant charity in my constituency is owed £1,800 as a result of Working Links going into administration. This is a significant sum for the Dracaena Centre in Falmouth. Will the Secretary of State intervene to ensure it is paid for its excellent work?

David Gauke: We will look at the specific case my hon. Friend raises, but we have already intervened to ensure those charities that have lost out as a consequence of what happened with Working Links receive support. I will make sure I look at her individual case.

Liz Saville-Roberts: Considering that many community rehabilitation companies are now discredited for prioritising profit over public safety, how will the Government hold them to account when mismanagement of their contractual responsibility for probation comes to light?

David Gauke: To be fair to the CRCs, I am not sure that any of them is taking steps to get profits—but perhaps to reduce their losses. In truth, the shareholders of CRCs have somewhat subsidised probation services in recent years. We will hold the CRCs to their contractual obligations and ensure they deliver what they are contractually obliged to deliver.

Leaving the EU: No Deal

Stuart McDonald: What steps his Department has taken to prepare for the UK leaving the EU without a deal; and if he will make a statement.

David Gauke: Our justice system is respected across the world. That was the case before we joined the EU, and it will continue to be the case after we leave. The Department has taken all necessary steps to ensure we are prepared for a deal across MOJ interests and for the possibility of a no-deal exit, to the extent it is possible to do so.
This includes working closely with other Departments to ensure that essential services continue; working with suppliers of key products to ensure essential supplies are in place; providing the courts and judiciary with additional training and resources to enable them to prepare for possible changes; and ensuring that contingencies are in place for any potential traffic disruption in the south-east of England.

Stuart McDonald: I thank the Secretary of State for that answer and welcome the strong statements he has made recently on a possible no-deal Brexit. Does he agree that, regardless of how much preparation is done, the implications of no deal for our justice systems would be dire?

David Gauke: What I would say to the hon. Gentleman is that leaving the EU without a deal risks some significant impacts across the justice system, including potential disruption to goods and services to our prisons; an increase in case load and case complexity across court jurisdictions; increased pressure on our courts system; the loss of access to several law enforcement tools, including the loss of data exchange tools, making it more difficult to protect the public; and market access impacts on our legal sector, restricting or removing our ability to operate in EU markets. So do I think a no-deal Brexit is a good idea? No, I do not.

Joanna Cherry: I commend the Secretary of State for his honesty, but  I wonder whether he would pass on his knowledge on this subject to the two candidates to be the next Prime Minister, because, despite their recent and mercifully brief visits to Scotland, they seem unaware of the impact on the safety of people living in Scotland and across the UK if we leave the EU without a deal. Has he spoken to them to explain that if we do not have the use of the European arrest warrant, it will be extremely difficult to apprehend people who commit violent crime in this country and then go back to the continent, whereas at the moment this can be done within a matter of days?

David Gauke: Both candidates for the leadership of my party have made it clear that they do not want a no-deal Brexit, and I wish them well—[Interruption.] I understand that the chances are “a million to one”, so I wish them well in their endeavours.

Joanna Cherry: It would seem that the Secretary of State and I must be reading different newspapers. In an earlier answer, he mentioned problems of data protection if we leave without a deal. Has he explained to the candidates to be Prime Minister that leaving without a deal means we would lose membership of Europol and, because of data protection rules, that would mean that not only would the police no longer have access to data held by Europol, but information that Police Scotland have currently been providing to Europol will be removed from Europol databases, thus prejudicing ongoing investigations? Does he agree that it is not acceptable for people in Scotland to have their safety so prejudiced?

David Gauke: First, I can confirm that I suspect we do read different newspapers, but I agree that the loss of access to various law enforcement tools would make it more difficult to protect the public. I am sure there are ways in which these issues can be addressed, but a much better way forward would be to leave the EU—this is where we disagree—with a deal.

Richard Burgon: A no-deal Brexit poses a serious threat to our justice system; ending access to the European arrest warrant and criminal database would leave us all less safe. The Justice Secretary agrees about those no-deal dangers, but I also fear that no deal is a stepping stone to a free trade deal with the United States of America. Labour’s justice spokesperson in the Lords recently asked whether our prisons would be up for grabs for American corporations in any post-Brexit free trade deal with the US, and the Government’s vague answer alarmed me. So will the Justice Secretary clearly state today that our prisons should not be part of any post-Brexit free trade deal with the USA?

David Gauke: First, I think I read different newspapers from the hon. Gentleman, although I do read the Morning Star when he has an article in it. [Interruption.] Which is not quite every day, although it sometimes feels like it. On trade deals with the US, it is the intention of this Government, and, I suspect, of the next Government, to enter into a trade deal with the US, but we would want to do so in a way that protects public services.

Tackling Reoffending: Voluntary Sector

Nigel Huddleston: What assessment the Government have made of the role of the voluntary sector in tackling reoffending.

Robert Buckland: The voluntary sector has a pivotal role in supporting rehabilitation and helping offenders to turn their lives around. I want to expand that role, including in the delivery of local and specialist services by smaller organisations. We have committed to tender up to  £280 million of contracts for unpaid work, accredited programmes and rehabilitation interventions in the future model.

Nigel Huddleston: There are indeed many brilliant charities and voluntary organisations that help ex-offenders get back on their feet, including in my constituency the likes of Caring Hands in the Vale, which is led by the brilliant Diane Bennett, and other organisations that work throughout the country, such as The Right Course, which is led by Fred Sirieix. What practical help can the Government give to such organisations?

Robert Buckland: My hon. Friend is right to raise the excellent work done by those two organisations. In fact, more than 10,000 people work for voluntary organisations that are involved in criminal justice, and I want to involve them more closely. I have mentioned the dynamic framework, but we will also have a £20 million regional outcomes fund to pilot innovative programmes. The new regional probation model will allow local approaches at a local level.

Support for Veterans

Dan Jarvis: What recent steps the Government have taken to support veterans in the criminal justice system.

Edward Argar: We all owe a great debt to those who serve in our excellent armed forces—including, of course, the hon. and gallant Gentleman—both during and after their service, and that also applies to those former armed forces personnel who enter the criminal justice system. The Government have committed £5.7 million to the support of ex-armed forces personnel in the criminal justice system, and we work in close partnership with a range of service charities to provide the help that they need.

Dan Jarvis: I thank the Minister for his response. I know he understands that veterans can have more complex needs than other offenders, but those needs are not always recognised, meaning that some do not get the support they require. Does he agree that we should have a dedicated veterans support officer in every probation and prison area?

Edward Argar: The hon. and gallant Gentleman raises an important point. He is absolutely right that many veterans have specific needs, which are, for example, often met in the custodial estate by service charities that understand and can relate to those needs. He raises a sensible and interesting suggestion that I am happy to pick up with him after questions.

Law Centres

Marsha de Cordova: What his Department’s policy is on law centres.

Paul Maynard: We recognise the valuable work that law centres do in local communities throughout the country and support them in that work through both grant funding and legal aid contracts.

Marsha de Cordova: Law centres such as South West London Law Centres, which has an office in my constituency, provide a significant cost saving to the  public finances by helping to resolve legal issues in the fields of debt, employment, immigration and housing before they spiral out of control. Will the Minister commit to securing Treasury funding to provide a central grant to law centres to ensure their survival?

Paul Maynard: A few weeks ago I visited my local law centre in Blackpool, the Fylde Coast Advice and Legal Centre, and saw the excellent work that it does. The centre that the hon. Lady mentioned is on my “to visit” list, so staff there will be seeing me imminently. She makes the important point that we need to bring early legal advice as close as possible to the individual’s front door, and not wait for matters to reach the court door. We are committed in our legal support action plan to looking into how law centres can best be utilised to deliver on that agenda, so I am keen to hear what staff have to say to me when I get to meet them.

Family Courts: Rape and Domestic Abuse Survivors

Preet Kaur Gill: What recent assessment he has made of the adequacy of the service provided by family courts to survivors of rape and domestic abuse and their children.

Paul Maynard: We are determined to improve the family justice response to vulnerable parents and children, including victims of rape and domestic abuse. An expert panel has been established to help us better to understand victims’ experiences in the family courts, and we will hold a public call for evidence to build a more detailed picture of any harm caused during or following proceedings.

Preet Kaur Gill: One of the most senior family court judges has described it as “shaming” to preside over so many cases where individuals are being forced to represent themselves because of the impact of legal aid cuts, especially as we should be minimising harm to children of victims of domestic violence. This really should be a central concern of our justice system. Is the Minister shamed by the effects of his Government’s policy?

Paul Maynard: What we are seeking to do with the panel that we have set up is make sure that we reappraise the incremental changes that have occurred over time and understand how that has impacted on practice in the courts. I am very keen to see what the panel has to say. It is independent, and I am not trying to pre-judge its outcomes at all, but I hope that it comes up with a series of short-term changes that we can make immediately. Areas of further work may be required.

Gloria De Piero: I wrote to the Minister requesting the removal of automatic entitlement to joint assets from those guilty of attempting to murder their spouse. In his response, he expressed concern that to do so may punish the offender twice. But that is exactly what is happening to the victim: they are subject first to attempted murder and then to continued abuse through the courts and the potential loss of their home. The victims’ rights must always come first. Does he support the removal of the presumption of entitlement to joint assets in these cases?

Paul Maynard: I do understand the points that the hon. Lady makes. I am glad that she read my reply carefully, and I understand why it might concern her. Part of the objective of this panel is to make sure that we look across the wide spectrum of practice in the family justice system. I have heard the points that she has made and I am sure that the panel will have, too. I look forward to seeing what advice the panel has.

Topical Questions

Marsha de Cordova: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

David Gauke: The Government intend to bring forward legislation when parliamentary time allows to create a Helen’s law. We propose to change the life sentence release test to ensure that, in a case where an offender has been sentenced for murder and the remains of the victim have not been found, the Parole Board must take account of any failure or refusal to disclose the location of those remains when assessing whether such an offender is safe to release. Although the Parole Board already considers such a failure or refusal as part of its risk assessment procedures, our proposal will set that out in statute. I pay tribute to Marie McCourt for her tireless work on the Helen’s law campaign and the hon. Member for St Helens North (Conor McGinn) for similar such work.

Marsha de Cordova: Last month, in a letter to me, the Secretary of State revealed that more than £26 million of public money has been wasted in a single year fighting and losing personal independence payment appeals. That is a vast sum, in addition to an appeals process that is forcing many disabled people to wait for their decisions. Does he believe that we are getting good value for public money, or does he accept Labour’s view that this is not only cruel but wasteful, and that it shows that we need to scrap these unfit-for-purpose assessments?

David Gauke: It is important that, where we have a benefit such as personal independence payments, we make an assessment as to whether those payments are going to the right people, and that, if there is an appeal against that, those appeals should be defended unless we believe that a mistake has been made. It is worth bearing in mind that, from memory, something like 4% of PIP assessments are overturned.

John Bercow: I call Dr Caroline Johnson.

Dr Caroline Johnson: Oh—I thought that I had Topical Question 6, Mr Speaker.

John Bercow: Well, it is done on an alternating basis. [Interruption.] I am just helping the hon. Lady. One alternates between the two sides of the House, and although she has Topical Question 6, she is the first of the Government Back Benchers, so her time is now. During the period in which I have been helpfully prattling away, she will, I feel certain, have conceived of an absolutely brilliant question.

Dr Caroline Johnson: Following the debate in Westminster Hall yesterday, can my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State tell me when he will be able to bring forward a Bill to increase the penalty for those who are convicted of causing death by dangerous driving?

Robert Buckland: I thank my hon. Friend for raising that issue. I am grateful to the Petitions Committee and to all hon. and right hon. Members who took part in that important debate yesterday, and to the families of the victims of that dreadful crime. It is my wish, and the wish of the Government, to bring forward the necessary legislation to change the maximum sentence from 14 years to life imprisonment as soon as humanly possible.

Richard Burgon: Last week I exposed the fact that the number of homeless women going to prison has almost doubled in the past four years. What is especially shocking is that almost half of all women now going to prison are homeless. This is an appalling indictment of our broken justice system. Prison is all too often the very worst place for people who desperately need help to tackle the underlying problems of homelessness, poverty, mental ill health and substance addiction that led to them being jailed in the first place. Is the Minister concerned that our prison system is targeting the poor, the marginalised and the vulnerable?

David Gauke: The hon. Gentleman sets out many of the reasons why we brought in the female offender strategy last year. We are seeking to address the root causes of criminality, which are very often—even more so with women—to do with mental health issues, as well as the fact that a very large proportion of women offenders are victims of domestic abuse. It is right that we have a female offender strategy that focuses on non-custodial measures; part of that will be women’s residential centres.

Bob Seely: Will the Minister update us on the sale or transfer to the Isle of Wight Council of Camp Hill prison? Is he aware of the importance of the site to the Island and to public housing on the Island, and does he understand the frustrations of Islanders, who see yet another bit of land being land-banked by either developers or Government Departments?

Robert Buckland: My hon. Friend is right to raise this issue. I am as anxious as him to ensure that that land can be put to good use. I wrote to him last month. We have commissioned a demolition survey of the former Camp Hill prison, and I will meet him when the results are available later this month. I will also visit the Island to see the prison estate and to talk about the matter directly with the Island council.

Bambos Charalambous: Since the Corston review into women in the criminal justice system in 2007, over 100 women have died in prison. INQUEST has recently published an update on its report, “Still Dying on the Inside”, which sets out the tragic and often avoidable circumstances around the deaths of women in custody. What concrete actions has the Minister taken to resolve this crisis?

Edward Argar: The hon. Gentleman makes a very important point. Although the female deaths in custody   rate is lower than that of men, every single death is a tragedy that we must do everything we can to prevent; and likewise with self-harm. We have improved the support available to women in prisons. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said, we believe that in many cases a community sentence or community support is better and more effective than prison. The hon. Gentleman will have seen the announcement we made a few weeks ago about the health and justice plan that we are currently working on to improve health and support for everyone in prison—not just female offenders, but obviously including them.

Neil O'Brien: Recent Ministry of Justice research shows the increasing concentration of crime in the hands of a few prolific criminals, but written answers that I have received in the past few weeks suggest that too few are being jailed. Will my right hon. Friend look to review the sentencing of prolific offenders?

David Gauke: This is one of the rare occasions when I have to say that I disagree with my hon. Friend. For prolific offenders of minor crimes, it is my view that a non-custodial approach is the right one, but we need to ensure that that works effectively. That is why I have announced reforms to probation. One problem we have at the moment is that such offenders get a short custodial sentence, which only disrupts lives but does not allow any opportunity to do any work on rehabilitation.

David Hanson: I agree with the Secretary of State’s last point, but in order to achieve that he will need to reverse the trend that has seen a fall in drug and alcohol rehabilitation requirement orders from 170,000 five years ago to 120,000 this year. Will he look at that point?

David Gauke: I certainly will. We have recently announced an extension of the community sentence treatment requirement pilots. That is the direction that we need to be going in to address some of the substance abuse and mental health issues that often lie behind these prolific offenders who do cause great difficulties for society. If we want to reduce reoffending, we need to focus on that group and take effective, evidence-led measures.

Stephen Metcalfe: On behalf of my constituent Linda Jones, may I thank and congratulate the Justice team, from the bottom of my heart, for bringing forward Helen’s law? Let us collectively hope that making parole harder to achieve unless a perpetrator reveals the whereabouts of the body will lead to the discovery of the remains of Danielle Jones—Linda Jones’s daughter—as well as those of Helen McCourt and all the other victims of such tragedies.

David Gauke: I thank my hon. Friend, who has been tireless on this cause on behalf of his constituent. Having met Marie McCourt, I know the pain that is suffered by those relatives who never get the opportunity to say farewell to their loved one. My hon. Friend has been making that case very, very forcefully, and I thank him for that.

Stuart McDonald: Contrary to the Government’s fairly timid review of the Legal Aid,   Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, Jo Wilding’s new report on legal aid for immigration cases warns that urgent policy action is required to avoid catastrophic market failure in England and Wales. Will Ministers read that report and respond with the urgency required?

Paul Maynard: I am always happy to read any report relevant to my brief. We are already reviewing many parts of the legal aid framework, particularly around the thresholds. I will have a look at that report and take it on board.

Tom Pursglove: As we head into the comprehensive spending review, what pitch will my right hon. Friend be making to the Treasury relating to prisons and schemes that have been successful in reducing reoffending?

David Gauke: My hon. Friend raises a very important point about reducing reoffending. I hope that there can be a focus in the comprehensive spending review on what the evidence leads us to do in reducing reoffending and prioritising areas that are effective in bringing down crime. He hits the nail on the head.

Toby Perkins: I have been in communication with the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard) about a constituent of mine who is facing an appalling situation with the Legal Aid Agency. The Legal Aid Agency applies a £100,000 disregard to eligibility for legal aid if someone is living in their main dwelling, but because my constituent is fleeing domestic violence and living in a women’s refuge, her property is considered to be her second home and she is being asked for the legal aid back. That cannot be the intention of the policy, but the Minister has not been able to do anything for my constituent. Will he urgently look into this and get us to a situation where people fleeing domestic violence are not penalised as a result of living in a refuge?

Paul Maynard: The hon. Gentleman wisely sent his communication to my parliamentary email, so I got to read it. That is a note to other Members around the House as to how to get my attention. I have already asked to speak to officials this afternoon and I hope to be in touch as soon as I can.

Tim Loughton: The Non-Contentious Probate (Fees) Order 2018 went through Committee at the beginning of the year but has still not been subject to a vote here. Given that the proposed increase, for no additional work, from £215 to potentially £6,000 has been described as an abuse of  the Lord Chancellor’s fee-levying powers, has he had second thoughts and decided to reject this iniquitous proposal?

David Gauke: I think the Government will be responding to that in due course.

Tim Loughton: What does that mean?

John Bercow: “What does that mean?”, the hon. Gentleman chunters from a sedentary position. He is not in a minority of one in posing that question, but the Secretary of State’s reply was delphic.

Janet Daby: Youth offending teams are struggling to provide their services for young people and the public as the result of year-on-year cuts to those services. This has meant highly complex case loads for staff, meaning that they can only respond through crisis intervention work. What are the Government going to do to help councils provide the sustained preventive interventions that are desperately needed in this sector?

Edward Argar: We, like the hon. Lady, value the work that youth offending teams do with children who have offended and the work they do to prevent offending. The Youth Justice Board’s total funding this year for frontline services, including youth offending teams, is £72.2 million, which is an increase on last year. We continue to invest in youth offending teams, but it is also important that we encourage innovations such as I saw when I visited Lewisham’s youth offending team earlier this year.

Philip Hollobone: IPP prisoners are those imprisoned indefinitely for public protection who have been found guilty of serious violent and sexual offences. In 2011, 300 were released. In 2017, 616 were released. How can the public feel safe when more than 10 of these people a week are being released on to our streets?

Robert Buckland: My hon. Friend asks an important question about sentences of indeterminate length for public protection. I assure him that the Parole Board applies the most rigorous of tests before release. Indeed, the number of recalls to prison pursuant to that regime is about 1,000 prisoners. We still have 2,500 within the estate subject to that regime. There are counterweights that suggest to me that some prisoners have been there for too long, but I hear what he says.

Barry Sheerman: I have an urgent topical question for the Secretary of State. He has always been very good on victim support, and he will be relieved that my question is not about miscarriages of justice. Brake in my constituency works with victims of road crashes and road injuries. It is a very good and unique group, but I have heard that it is losing its grant from the Ministry of Justice. Why would that be?

David Gauke: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind words. Let me look at that particular issue and, if I may, I will write to him.

Bob Neill: In his speech at Mansion House last week, the Secretary of State rightly and powerfully paid tribute to the integrity and value of an independent judiciary to this country. Will he make it possible for that speech to be disseminated to all Members of this House, so that everyone here recognises the responsibility that sits upon us to treat the judiciary with respect and support its independence from political or other attacks at all times?

David Gauke: I thank my hon. Friend for those remarks. I believe it is very important to this country that we respect the independence of the judiciary, and the rule of law is at the heart of what we are about as a country. I can tell him that my speech is available on the gov.uk website—I hope that this announcement will not result in that website crashing, but I assure the House that it can be found there.

John Bercow: Well, that sounds an intoxicating read.

Alex Norris: I look forward to meeting the Prisons Minister next week to discuss HMP Nottingham. One of the major challenges at the jail is drugs. What is the latest update on the roll-out of body scanners at this prison and others?

Robert Buckland: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his continued interest in and concern for the welfare of prisoners and staff at HMP Nottingham. I look forward to updating him in detail next week. Among the issues we will discuss is that of drugs and how to eradicate them.

Nigel Huddleston: I was delighted last Friday to present long-service awards to more than a dozen prison officers and staff at Long Lartin Prison in my constituency. Will the Prisons Minister join me in thanking them for their service, often of more than 20 years? What is being done on the recruitment and retention of prison officers?

Robert Buckland: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for taking such an interest in his local prison and taking part in that scheme. I mentioned the Prison Officer of the Year awards. The importance of those awards is to recognise the outstanding service of prison officers and other staff within the estate. In terms of retention, we are improving the way in which we train and support prison officers, particularly the newest recruits, and the number of prison officers has increased by 1,500 in the year to date.

Bridget Phillipson: The work of our youth offending service in Sunderland is vital, yet since 2011 it has lost almost half its funding. If the Secretary of State is serious about diverting young people away from crime, will he look again at the current funding situation? We can and should be doing much more to support our young people, their families and the wider community.

Edward Argar: As I said to the hon. Member for Lewisham East (Janet Daby), we recognise the vital work of youth offending teams across the country. We have increased the funding for frontline services this year. Local authorities also have a role to play. While she is right that the funding has reduced, it is worth remembering that so too has the statutory case load, by a significant amount. That is not the only factor—they do other work, which must be recognised—but it is a factor.

Sarah Wollaston: What assessment has the Minister made of the delays and errors at the Cardiff probate office, because what used to take a  matter of 10 working days for my constituents is now taking months? Can he set out exactly what is causing the delays and, more importantly, what can be done to reduce them?

Paul Maynard: As I said at the start of Question Time, it is wrong that people in a state of bereavement are having to wait so long for these matters to be addressed. In May the average waiting time was eight weeks, and it has now decreased to six or seven weeks. I intend to keep working with Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service to keep that downward trend and bring waiting times back to the traditional two to three weeks.

Thangam Debbonaire: The Prisons Minister has been good enough to keep me informed of developments at HMP Bristol in Horfield and of the urgent notification status. Will he agree to visit the prison with me, hopefully in the next couple of months, so that he can see for himself the challenges there are and how we can support the prison and the next governor to provide a safe regime?

Robert Buckland: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her continuing interest in HMP Bristol. The response to the urgent notification will be issued this week, and I will indeed visit the prison with her in the coming months to ensure that the necessary progress is achieved.

Alex Cunningham: In his answers to my hon. Friends the Members for Lewisham East (Janet Daby) and for Houghton and Sunderland South (Bridget Phillipson), the Minister seemed content with youth offending services, yet every day we see the results of the Government’s neglect of those services. Assuming that he has learnt from that failure, what advice will he offer his successor to sort it out?

Edward Argar: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that question—I am not yet sure whether that will be a matter for me or for a successor, but I assume he meant it kindly. He is right that the central Government grant has been reduced, as I said in answer to the hon. Member for Houghton and Sunderland South (Bridget Phillipson), and so too has that contributed by local authorities. It is important also to recognise the reducing statutory case load to set alongside that, although that is in no way to diminish the absolutely vital work that youth offending teams do. The hon. Gentleman is right to highlight that. I share his concern and will continue to work closely with the Youth Justice Board on it.

Louise Haigh: Campaigners and I are really pleased that the Government have commissioned a review of the treatment of victims of domestic abuse by the family courts, but we are concerned that survivors’ voices are not at the heart of the panel. I am looking forward to meeting the Minister next week, but will he take this opportunity to confirm on the record how victims and survivors of domestic abuse can participate in the review without fear of breaching gagging clauses imposed on them by the family courts?

Paul Maynard: The hon. Lady makes an excellent point. I have already had discussions with the panel’s chairs on how to ensure that as broad a spectrum of people as possible can participate in the panel and its evidence taking. I will take away that point and hopefully have a concrete answer for her by the time we meet.

Wera Hobhouse: Witnessing domestic abuse, especially as a child, is traumatising and has an impact on life for years to come. In the upcoming domestic violence legislation, will the Minister commit to including children who have witnessed domestic abuse in the statutory definition of a domestic abuse victim?

Edward Argar: The hon. Lady rightly highlights the importance of the draft Domestic Abuse Bill, which we hope to bring forward as soon as we have fully considered the recommendations of the Joint Committee on the draft Bill. I know that is something that came up in evidence and in the Joint Committee, and it is something we will be looking at very carefully.

Emma Lewell-Buck: My constituent Claire Ball was sexually abused as a child. She bravely went through the trauma of giving evidence against the perpetrator in court. Throughout that process, Claire was given less support than the perpetrator, had no option for witnesses to support her and, disgustingly, was accused of “leading him on”. He was found not guilty—Claire has still not been given a clear reason why—and has remained living close by. Can the Minister explain to me and to Claire, since she must relive the trauma every time she sees the perpetrator, when the Government will redress the inequity faced by child sexual abuse victims in our justice system?

Edward Argar: The hon. Lady makes a powerful point. The issues to which she alludes are likely to fall under the responsibilities of both the Crown Prosecution Service and the court. I am happy to meet her to discuss the specifics of the case and, as appropriate, take them up with the Solicitor General and the Attorney General.

SPEAKER’S STATEMENT

John Bercow: In a moment, we will come to the ten-minute rule motion. However, the House will be aware of the subsequent business appertaining to Northern Ireland. By way of explanation, I wanted to mention the following. Last night, my office received a telephone call from a sadly rather uninitiated tabloid scribbler who seemed much excited by the rumour that “Mr Speaker would not be chairing Committee proceedings”. He was most anxious to decipher the reason for this, because it seemed to him most mysterious. Kindness and generosity of spirit prevent me from naming the said individual. [Hon. Members: “Go on.”] However, perhaps I can be permitted to say on the Floor of the House what is well known to Members: it is a very long established convention that Mr Speaker does not chair the Committee of the whole House. When I say a long established convention I am referring to a convention dating back to the 17th century.
I know that some people are slow learners and others are late developers, but I hope that the chappie has now got the point, and it will be a professional utility to him thereafter not to need to trouble my staff to be educated on this front. There we go, there is hope for us all. The fella has now, I think, probably grasped the point.

TIN MINING SUBSIDENCE

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

George Eustice: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require the Coal Authority to undertake remedial works on properties with subsidence damage as a result of tin mining; to make provision for the Coal Authority to make compensation payments in lieu of such works; and for connected purposes.
The Cornish tin mining industry left many great legacies. In its heyday, it generated extraordinary wealth for our nation. Between the 15th and 18th centuries, there was even a stannary parliament in Cornwall that had the power to veto certain tax proposals coming from central Government. The industry was also a catalyst for great invention and innovation. Richard Trevithick from Camborne invented the first steam locomotive, and William Murdoch from Redruth invented gas lighting—both inventions that shaped our modern world.
There were companies, too, such as Holman’s, which developed extraordinary drilling technology that was exported to mining operations around the world. When the industry declined in the late 19th century, Cornish miners took their expertise around the globe to build mines as far afield as Australia, South Africa, California, Mexico and South America. Today, we still have the world-famous Camborne School of Mines, located with Exeter University at Falmouth, and a new generation of companies is taking that heritage of drilling expertise to the oil and gas industry, and to renewables. There is even some discussion about reopening the last tin mine at South Crofty, as tin prices have recovered.
For those living in Cornwall, however, there is a less welcome legacy from tin mining—the problem of subsidence damage caused by historical mine workings. The subterranean area in Camborne, Pool and Redruth in particular, but also in many parts of Cornwall, is said to resemble a Swiss cheese. It is a complex network of tunnels and mines under the towns in my constituency.
Those mine workings pose several difficult problems for residents. First, there can be significant costs when damage occurs. One of my constituents had to raise a second mortgage on their property to secure £20,000 to put right a mining feature that had opened up in their front garden. Secondly, there is sometimes ambiguity over the liability of insurers. In general cases, insurers help when there is damage directly to a property, although they seldom assist when there are problems arising within the curtilage of a property but not to the structure of the building. They do not generally remedy features to prevent future damage.
The final problem this issue poses for my constituents and others in Cornwall is that there are many cases where people undertake a mining search with a particular company when they buy a property and the company tells them there are no issues, so they purchase a property and secure a mortgage, but often when they want to move and sell their home, they find that a different buyer will use a different mining search company that  has different data available to it, and that reveals an issue that can make it difficult for a purchaser to get a mortgage.
The problems arising from mining subsidence damage are obviously not unique to Cornwall—coalmining took place in huge areas of this country—but what is unique to Cornwall is that there is no Government-backed scheme to assist residents with the problems they face.
There has been a long-standing Government scheme for coal. In 1957, when the Coal-Mining (Subsidence) Act was introduced, there was an opportunity to include tin mining workings, but it was not taken. In 1975, there was a new Coal Industry Act, which formalised the role of British Coal in giving compensation, particularly  to the nationalised industry. Again, the opportunity to include tin was missed. In 1991, new legislation was introduced to consolidate the compensation schemes in this area, through the Coal Mining Subsidence Act 1991. Again, tin was excluded. In 1994, the Coal Industry Act assigned responsibility for these compensation schemes to the Coal Authority and, again, this excluded tin. My Bill would correct that long-standing oversight and end the prejudice against communities that suffer from subsidence damage as a result of tin mining.
It is sometimes said that coal is different, and it is sometimes said that coal is different because it was a nationalised industry. However, this claim does not stand up to any kind of scrutiny, because the 1991 Act applies to all damage caused by coalmining, whether that was pre-nationalisation, during the war or post-nationalisation, and whether it was private or public. Even after the nationalisation of our coal industry, there continued to be some private mines. Indeed, the original 1957Act on coalmining subsidence mainly addressed the issue of private mines, where the liability for damage could not be established.
Sometimes it is said that the geology of Cornwall means there are fewer problems. Cornwall is okay, people say, because it is built on granite and there are fewer subsidence issues. All I can say is that if a homeowner does have a subsidence event on their property, that is every bit as difficult for them as it is for any resident  in a coalmining area. The fact that there could be proportionately fewer cases in tin mining areas, frankly, ought to make the Government more ready to act in this space. There is no need for the Treasury to fret about the cost of it all, because including tin mining would be a modest extension of the scheme.
The Coal Authority deals with between 500 and 600 claims in coalmining areas each and every year, and it has a budget of about £27 million, much of which is   spent on remedying subsidence issues. In 2014, there was a triennial review of the functions of the Coal Authority, and in 2017 a separate, tailored review was run by the Cabinet Office. Both those reviews concluded that the current approach and the current system in the Coal Authority were fit for purpose. They considered other alternatives to compensate communities, but those were all ruled out. My contention is that what is good for coal is good for tin.
I am aware, from my discussions on this, that the Treasury—I think some officials in the Treasury—also took the view that there was an unfairness here, with coal being treated differently from other types of mining. Initially, I was encouraged by that, but the Treasury being the Treasury, it of course had a rather different solution to this, which was to pull the rug out from under the coal scheme, rather than to add tin to it. Thankfully, both the reviews and Ministers have ruled out such action.
My Bill would broaden the remit of the Coal Authority, placing an equivalent legal requirement on it to assist in subsidence cases in tin mining areas. The geographical footprint for tin mining—located, as it is, mainly in west Cornwall, although in other parts of Cornwall too and in some parts of west Devon—means there will be far fewer cases for tin mining than there are for coalmining. As I said earlier, the geology of Cornwall—built, as it is, on solid granite—means the Government could expect proportionately fewer claims coming from these tin mining areas than they currently receive from coalmining areas.
The addition of tin to the compensation scheme that has existed since 1957 would be a drop in the ocean for a Department such as the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. However, it would mean a great deal to those families and communities that are affected by the blight of subsidence caused by mine workings. Given Cornwall’s great contribution to the wealth of our nation and to the industrial revolution, I believe that the least we could do in this House is correct this historical oversight, prejudice and injustice against Cornwall and against communities suffering from tin mining subsidence.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That George Eustice, Derek Thomas, Sarah Newton, Scott Mann, Steve Double, Mrs Sheryll Murray and Sir Gary Streeter present the Bill.
George Eustice accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 418).

NORTHERN IRELAND (EXECUTIVE FORMATION) BILL

Considered in Committee (Order, 8 July)
[Dame Eleanor Laing in the Chair]

Eleanor Laing: We will begin with new clause 1, but before I call the hon. Member for St Helens North (Conor McGinn), I will point out a few matters to hon. Members. There are several changes to the provisional selection and grouping. These are fairly minor changes, but Members will appreciate that the Bill was published very recently and that there has been quite a lot of interest in it.
New clause 10, in the name of the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy), currently appears in the second group of amendments. It should have appeared in the first group of amendments with new clause 1, so I would be grateful if Members read the first group of amendments as including new clause 10, in the name of the hon. Lady. New clause 19 should not have appeared on the provisional selection of amendments at all, as new clause 19 has not been selected. Amendment 11 has a small error in it, and an amended text of amendment 11 will be issued shortly; it is not dramatic.

New Clause 1

Marriage of same-sex couples in Northern Ireland

“(1) The Secretary of State must make regulations to change the law relating to marriage in Northern Ireland to provide that marriage between same-sex couples is lawful.
(2) Regulations under this section must be in force no later than 21 October 2019, subject to subsections (3) and (4).
(3) A statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection (1)—
(a) must be laid before both Houses of Parliament;
(b) is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
(4) If a Northern Ireland Executive is formed before the regulations under this section come into force, any regulations made under this section and any extant obligations arising under subsection (1) shall cease to have effect.”—(Conor McGinn.)
This new clause would require UK secondary legislation to extend same-sex marriage to Northern Ireland unless a Northern Ireland Executive is formed by 21 October 2019.
Brought up, and read the First time.

Conor McGinn: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Eleanor Laing: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 2—Pension for victims and survivors of Troubles-related incidents: debate—
“(1) A Minister of the Crown must, within the period of two sitting days beginning with the first sitting day on or after the day on which the report on progress made towards preparing legislation to implement a pension for seriously injured victims and survivors of Troubles-related incidents mentioned in section 3 is published, make arrangements for—
(a) a motion to the effect that the House of Commons has approved that report to be moved in that House by a Minister of the Crown within the period of seven Commons sitting days beginning with the day on which the relevant report mentioned in section 3 is published, and
(b) a motion for the House of Lords to take note of the report mentioned in paragraph (a) to be moved in that House by a Minister of the Crown within the period of seven Lords sitting days beginning with the day on which the relevant report mentioned in section 3 is published.
(2) In this section—
“Commons sitting day” means a day on which the House of Commons is sitting (and a day is only a day on which the House of Commons is sitting if the House begins to sit on that day);
“Lords sitting day” means a day on which the House of Lords is sitting (and a day is only a day on which the House of Lords is sitting if the House begins to sit on that day).”
This new clause is linked to amendment 1 on a report on progress made towards preparing legislation to implementing a pension for seriously injured victims and survivors of Troubles-related incidents, and provides for the report to be debated in Parliament.
New clause 4—Reproductive rights of women in Northern Ireland: debate—
“(1) A Minister of the Crown must, within the period of two sitting days beginning with the first sitting day on or after the day on which the report on progress made towards meeting international human rights obligations applicable to the United Kingdom in relation to the reproductive rights of women mentioned in section 3 is published, make arrangements for—
(a) a motion to the effect that the House of Commons has approved that report to be moved in that House by a Minister of the Crown within the period of seven Commons sitting days beginning with the day on which the relevant report mentioned in section 3 is published, and
(b) a motion for the House of Lords to take note of the report mentioned in paragraph (a) to be moved in that House by a Minister of the Crown within the period of seven Lords sitting days beginning with the day on which the relevant report mentioned in section 3 is published.
(2) In this section—
“Commons sitting day” means a day on which the House of Commons is sitting (and a day is only a day on which the House of Commons is sitting if the House begins to sit on that day);
“Lords sitting day” means a day on which the House of Lords is sitting (and a day is only a day on which the House of Lords is sitting if the House begins to sit on that day).”
This new clause is linked to amendment 2 on a report on progress made towards meeting international human rights obligations applicable to the United Kingdom in relation to the reproductive rights of women, and provides for the report to be debated in Parliament.
New clause 6—Historical institutional abuse in Northern Ireland: debate—
“(1) A Minister of the Crown must, within the period of two sitting days beginning with the first sitting day on or after the day on which the report on progress made towards implementing the recommendations made by the Report of the Inquiry into Historical Institutional Abuse in Northern Ireland between 1922 and 1995 is published, make arrangements for—
(a) a motion to the effect that the House of Commons has approved that report to be moved in that House by a Minister of the Crown within the period of seven   Commons sitting days beginning with the day on which the relevant report mentioned in section 3 is published, and
(b) a motion for the House of Lords to take note of the report mentioned in paragraph (a) to be moved in that House by a Minister of the Crown within the period of seven Lords sitting days beginning with the day on which the relevant report mentioned in section 3 is published.
(2) In this section—
“Commons sitting day” means a day on which the House of Commons is sitting (and a day is only a day on which the House of Commons is sitting if the House begins to sit on that day);
“Lords sitting day” means a day on which the House of Lords is sitting (and a day is only a day on which the House of Lords is sitting if the House begins to sit on that day).”
This new clause is linked to amendment 3 on a report on progress towards implementing the recommendations made by the Hart Report of the Inquiry into Historical Institutional Abuse in Northern Ireland between 1922 and 1995, and provides for the report to be debated in Parliament.
New clause 8—Same-sex marriage in Northern Ireland: debate—
“(1) A Minister of the Crown must, within the period of two sitting days beginning with the first sitting day on or after the day on which the report on progress made towards implementing marriage for same-sex couples in Northern Ireland is published, make arrangements for—
(a) a motion to the effect that the House of Commons has approved that report to be moved in that House by a Minister of the Crown within the period of seven Commons sitting days beginning with the day on which the relevant report mentioned in section 3 is published, and
(b) a motion for the House of Lords to take note of the report mentioned in paragraph (a) to be moved in that House by a Minister of the Crown within the period of seven Lords sitting days beginning with the day on which the relevant report mentioned in section 3 is published.
(2) In this section—
“Commons sitting day” means a day on which the House of Commons is sitting (and a day is only a day on which the House of Commons is sitting if the House begins to sit on that day);
“Lords sitting day” means a day on which the House of Lords is sitting (and a day is only a day on which the House of Lords is sitting if the House begins to sit on that day).”
This new clause is linked to amendment 3 on a report on progress towards implementing the recommendations made by the Hart Report of the Inquiry into Historical Institutional Abuse in Northern Ireland between 1922 and 1995, and provides for the report to be debated in Parliament.
New clause 10—International obligations—
“(1) In accordance with the requirements of section 26 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 regarding international obligations, the Secretary of State must make regulations by statutory instrument to give effect to the recommendations of the Report of the Inquiry concerning the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland under article 8 of the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women.
(2) Regulations under this section must come into force by 21 October 2019, subject to subsections (3) and (4).
(3) A statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection (1)—
(a) must be laid before both Houses of Parliament;
(b) is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
(4) If a Northern Ireland Executive is formed before 21 October 2019, any extant obligations arising under subsection (1) shall cease to have effect.”
Amendment 9, in clause3,page2,line15,at end insert—
“(1A) The report under subsection (1) must include a review of the current legal framework on abortion in Northern Ireland with an analysis of how that framework could be amended by Parliament during the period when there is no Executive, subject to a sunset clause to respect devolution, in order to comply with the human rights obligations of the United Kingdom.”
The subsection would include placing a duty on the Secretary to State to report on the legal framework on abortion in Northern Ireland with an analysis of how that framework could be amended by Parliament during the period when there is no Executive, subject to a sunset clause to respect devolution, in order to comply with the human rights obligations of the United Kingdom.
Amendment 10, page2,line15,at end insert—
“(1A) Before making a report under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must publish a report on or before 4 September 2019 on progress made towards preparing legislation implementing a pension for seriously injured victims and survivors of Troubles-related incidents.”
The subsection would include placing a duty on the Secretary of State to report on the implementation of a pension for seriously injured victims and survivors of Troubles-related incidents.
Amendment 11,page2,line15,at end insert—
‘(1A) Before making a report under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must publish a report on or before 4 September 2019 on progress made towards meeting international human rights obligations applicable to the United Kingdom in respect of Northern Ireland in relation to the reproductive rights of women.”
The subsection would include placing a duty on the Secretary of State to report on the implications of any relevant judicial decision in relation to abortion.
Amendment 12,page2,line15,at end insert—
“(1A) Before making a report under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must publish a report on or before 4 September 2019 on progress made towards implementing the recommendations made by the Report of the Inquiry into Historical Institutional Abuse in Northern Ireland between 1922 and 1995, including the establishment of a publicly funded compensation scheme under an HIA Redress Board, distinct from the Northern Ireland Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme 2009.”
The subsection calls for a report on implementing the Report of the Inquiry into Historical Institutional Abuse in Northern Ireland between 1922 and 1995, published in January 2017, which was chaired by Sir Anthony Hart.
Amendment 13, page2,line15,at end insert—
“(1A) Before making a report under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must publish a report on or before 4 September 2019 on progress made in preparing legislation to make provision for the marriage of same sex couples in Northern Ireland.”
The subsection calls for a report on preparations for same-sex marriage in Northern Ireland.

Conor McGinn: I rise to speak to new clause 1 in my name and the names of many right hon. and hon. Friends and Members across the Chamber. I want to speak briefly about the purpose of the new clause, the rationale for my tabling it and for wording it in the way I have and my motivation for bringing this before the Committee today.
The purpose of the new clause is straightforward. It stipulates that, if devolution is not restored to Northern Ireland in the form of a functioning Assembly and Executive, the Secretary of State would bring forward regulations in this House to introduce the legalisation for same-sex marriage in Northern Ireland.
My rationale for phrasing the new clause as I have, with the stipulations that it contains, is simple. There is an ongoing talks process at Stormont. Two and a half years since the Assembly and Executive collapsed, we are still waiting on that to come to a successful fruition. As I said last night at Second Reading, these issues are difficult and complicated, and politicians in Northern Ireland have my respect and full support in trying to resolve those; but if, in three months’ time, they—along with the two Governments—have not been able to ensure that a fully functioning Executive and Assembly are back up and running, we should legislate here for equal marriage. In the event that they are up and running before then, this provision would not be enacted. In the event that the Stormont Executive and Assembly are up and running after we enact this measure here, of course the power to legislate on marriage remains with the Stormont Executive and Assembly, and they could seek to change or overrule the regulation that we have made here.

Ian Paisley Jnr: Is the hon. Member at all concerned that the implication of this could impact on the negotiation process and de-incentivise one of the parties from negotiating at this particular time—that it would just sit it out until 21 October?

Conor McGinn: I think the hon. Gentleman is posing a question for his own party and other participants in the talks, because to my mind the idea that this measure would lead to a failure of those parties to restore the Stormont institutions and get on with doing the business of Government on everything, including health and education, is quite far-fetched. It should act as an incentive for the parties to come to an agreement and have the institutions restored.
When the hon. Gentleman talks about one particular party, I think he refers to Sinn Féin. It has been very clear with me that it wants to see this decision made at Stormont, not Westminster. I have had discussions through the Love Equality campaign—the broad-based campaign for equal marriage—but also directly with all the political parties in Northern Ireland, including members of the hon. Gentleman’s own party, about the new clause. I understand the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues’ strongly, firmly and sincerely held views, both on the substantive issue that we are discussing and on the interpretation of its impact on the devolved settlement. I hope, however, he will accept that I, in crafting the new clause in this way, have tried as far as possible, in absolutely and unapologetically trying to make this happen and have same-sex marriage extended to Northern Ireland, to give the time and space for the political parties and the two Governments to restore the institutions. I have also respected the devolved settlement by emphatically saying that the power remains with Stormont. But at the minute—

Joanna Cherry: We are very proud of the introduction of equal marriage in Scotland under an SNP Government, led by the former First Minister, Alex Salmond. I am happy to hear the hon. Gentleman making it clear that he respects the devolved settlement. It is much easier for many of us in the SNP to support this excellent measure in the knowledge that he is proposing it given the fact that there is no Assembly at the moment, but it still respects the devolved settlement.

Conor McGinn: I thank the hon. and learned Lady for her intervention and pay tribute to her and her colleague the hon. Member for Livingston (Hannah Bardell) for the work that they have done to ensure that their party is in a position to support the new clause tonight. That is very important to me, because the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) raised a point last night about her validly and genuinely held concern about the impact this would have on devolution; and when the hon. Lady speaks, I listen, as I think do most Members across this House. I hope that, given the answer that I gave last night and my explanation today, she is comfortable with the knowledge that this power does remain a devolved one, but that in the absence of an Assembly and Executive we can make what might be described as an interim provision here, which can then be overturned by the Assembly if it is back up and running.

Sylvia Hermon: rose—

Nigel Dodds: rose—

Conor McGinn: I will give way to the hon. Lady and then to the right hon. Gentleman.

Sylvia Hermon: I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to intervene. May I just remind him of the fact that a large number of constituents, and those who are not constituents, have emailed me, and have contacted other Members representing Northern Ireland constituencies and who have taken their seats here, greatly concerned about the possibility that his new clause might undermine the devolved settlement in Northern Ireland? What can I say to those constituents, in an email reply to them, that confirms to them that the hon. Gentleman’s new clause in no way undermines the devolved settlement that was crafted so carefully by a Labour party led by Tony Blair?

Conor McGinn: I thank the hon. Lady again for the direct way in which she puts the question. I was not old enough to vote for the Good Friday agreement, but everything I have done in my personal life and political career has been about supporting that—supporting the principle of consent, supporting power sharing, supporting peace on the island of Ireland, and supporting reconciliation between people who live in Northern Ireland and between Ireland and Britain. I am a passionate defender of the devolved settlement and a devolutionist. I think that, despite the ups and downs we have had, it has been a force for good in Northern Ireland, and my priority, and what I want to see, is the Assembly back up and functioning in Stormont.
As I have said, it is my strong view that, given the way the new clause is crafted—it has been selected by the Chair—it does not impinge upon the devolved settlement; it explicitly recognises that this is a devolved power. At the minute, however, the Assembly and the Executive exist in the ether, or as a concept, not in reality, so if they cannot make this law, we will make it here, because, as I have said often, rights delayed are rights denied. We will make the law here, and then when the Assembly is back up and running, the power remains its to change it.

Nigel Dodds: I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way and for giving way so frequently so early. This is an important issue because his proposal does  drive a coach and horses through the principle of devolution and, if the SNP is prepared to accept it, this House can legislate and then ask a devolved legislature to overturn it. That is an interesting and novel concept. But would the hon. Gentleman confirm that, in seeking to drive a coach and horses through the principle of devolution, overriding the concerns—[Interruption.]—overriding the concerns of people in Northern Ireland that the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) has referred to, his proposal actually would be not for a vote in this House, but that the procedure would be a process of annulment, so that regulations would come forward without any further vote in this House? Perhaps he would explain whether that is the case; I am just asking a question of information

Conor McGinn: Regulations would come forward in the usual form, on the basis of a vote tonight approving the mechanism to do that. The Bill in fact makes specific provision for the Secretary of State to introduce regulations, through statutory instruments, for governance in Northern Ireland. That is not specified—what I am actually doing is specifying one area where I would wish them to do that.
I understand that an issue like this is binary, and that the right hon. Gentleman and I are on opposite sides on this, but I hope he understands that it certainly is not my intention to drive a coach and horses through anything. I gently say to him, I have always supported the devolved institutions from 1998 and the power-sharing arrangements that were made then.

Ian Paisley Jnr: No one challenges the hon. Gentleman’s sincerity, both on the point of his desire to see relations fixed in Northern Ireland and his opinion on this matter. We are just at different ends of the scale in terms of opinion on this matter. Surely he must accept, under the work that he did when he was in the shadow office, that this completely and totally usurps the role of the Northern Ireland Assembly. It does drive a coach and horses through the issues. There is not sufficient time between now and 21 October to establish a new Executive that would be able to function on these matters by that date. Surely he recognises that.

Conor McGinn: I thank the hon. Gentleman for what he has said and I will answer him very directly. Far from usurping the role of the Assembly, I am acting on a mandate given by the Assembly when it voted in favour of equal marriage. That was vetoed by his party, using a petition of concern to block it. The majority of the Assembly, the majority of political parties in Northern Ireland, members of his own party, and the overwhelming majority of the public support legislating to legalise equal marriage in Northern Ireland.

Wes Streeting: The constitutional debate we are hearing this afternoon is very important—no one would deny that. My hon. Friend has already made the point that the distinction between Northern Ireland and Scotland is that there is a functioning Scottish Government and a functioning Scottish Parliament. But this is not just about constitutions; it is about people and the fact that Northern Ireland is, at present, the only place in the whole of the United Kingdom, or indeed the island of Ireland, where LGBT people cannot  exercise their right to marry. Given that there is already, as he says, a majority in favour in the Assembly and a majority in favour among the public, is this issue not now about democracy and human rights?

Conor McGinn: I think it is. That has always been my contention and I hope to speak on that in my closing remarks. Did the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) want to intervene? I will give way one last time and then I will have to make progress.

Ian Paisley Jnr: The hon. Gentleman is being very generous. He makes a point about rights. There is the protection of rights in the Assembly: the petition of concern allows for all rights to be protected. That is why, I assume, he supported Tony Blair when he introduced the petition of concern mechanism.

Conor McGinn: It is very important that we have a mechanism where sensitive, cultural or constitutional issues get support on a cross-party basis. I do not believe same-sex marriage was one of those issues and I do not think it was appropriate to use the petition of concern in that respect.

Hannah Bardell: I pay tribute to the very pragmatic and careful way the hon. Gentleman has drafted his new clause and gone about this. What can I say, other than that I give my full support to him, the people of Northern Ireland and, in particular, the LGBTIQ people in Northern Ireland? The hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting) made the important point that it is a very different situation when the Northern Ireland Assembly has not sat for 900 days. The Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government are fully functioning, and Scotland has had a coach and horses driven through its devolved settlement. The hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) should remember that. We absolutely support the hon. Member for St Helens North (Conor McGinn). I hope that Democratic Unionist party and Government Members will listen to him very carefully. We have an opportunity to do something very positive here. I hope Members from across the Chamber will support him.

Conor McGinn: I appreciate the hon. Lady’s remarks and the work she has done in Scotland. I also appreciate her acknowledgment that this can and should be done, and that it does not impinge on the devolved settlement.

Stephen Doughty: My hon. Friend knows his new clause has my full support. As I made clear on Second Reading last night, I am a proud devolutionist. I support the Welsh Assembly and the Welsh Government, as I do the other devolved Administrations. This matter is about a fundamental issue of rights. He has constructed this in a very careful way. Does he agree that there is a fundamental anomaly here? Individuals in the rest of the UK who want to marry Northern Irish citizens, or get in a marriage in Northern Ireland are unable to do that at present. That is a huge anomaly that affects relationships and people across the United Kingdom.

Conor McGinn: Absolutely. I see that my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Ged Killen) is in his place. He is married to a Tyrone man.  As an Armagh man, I make no further comment on his choice of husband and his county affiliations. [Laughter.] He makes the point frequently that, when he is in Scotland they are married and recognised by the law, but when they get off the plane in Belfast they quite simply are not. That cannot continue and, from a Unionist point of view, is anathema to anyone who values equal rights within the Union as a whole.

Owen Smith: My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech and I wholeheartedly support his new clause. Does he agree that we in this House need to remember that it is not unique for us to propose to legislate from Westminster in respect of Northern Ireland? It is not particularly anomalous. There have been myriad occasions in recent history, during the difficult periods of the political process in Northern Ireland and over the past two years, when we have legislated effectively in this place to either put in place important provisions for the people Northern Ireland or to keep the peace process on track. This is an important instance when we should do likewise and step in in the absence of the Assembly.

Conor McGinn: I thank my hon. Friend for what he said and for the work he did as shadow Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. This and other issues we will discuss today, on which I am sure he intends to speak, were critical to getting us to the point where we are now.
I want to close my speech because there are myriad other important issues—

Tim Loughton: The hon. Gentleman is being generous in taking interventions. I am very pleased to have added my name to his new clause, and I speak as somebody who did not vote for the same-sex marriage Bill originally, but the world has not fallen in since. I would not vote to change the law and this is a matter of equal opportunities for people across the United Kingdom. I believe in the Union and therefore I believe that the opportunity should be open to every citizen of every part of the United Kingdom. Can I ask him—I am sure the answer will be yes because he supported my Civil Partnerships, Marriages and Deaths (Registration Etc.) Bill to have equal civil partnerships in England and, I hope, the rest of the United Kingdom—would he support extending that equality to Northern Ireland? If we brought those two together, what a double whammy that would be.

Conor McGinn: I very much appreciate the sentiment, but let us get through today first and then we can have a conversation about that.

Gavin Robinson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Conor McGinn: I will, but I am afraid I will then have to close.

Gavin Robinson: I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I appreciate him taking this intervention. I hope he recognises that the comments I made last night about the unsatisfactory way in which individual issues have been adopted are not attributable to him. He is right, and has every entitlement, to advance the issues he so chooses. There are a huge number of issues that affect society in Northern Ireland and impinge on rights  in Northern Ireland, yet there is no progress on legislation for them. I do not expect him to champion all those causes individually but, if he believes now is the time for Westminster to start acting and legislating on those matters, will he be responsive and proactive, and support a huge range of issues that we believe need to be addressed in Northern Ireland and cannot wait any longer?

Conor McGinn: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. I have always been clear that I am an MP from Northern Ireland, not for Northern Ireland. It is his job and the job of his colleagues and other MPs to lead on issues that are affecting their constituents. I do not claim a mandate from Northern Ireland but, as I said in last night’s debate, I hope people will accept that it is the place that I will always call home. Family and friends still live there. I try to visit when I can and I care deeply about the place.
On the hon. Gentleman’s point about Westminster engaging in other issues that have been raised over the course of the debate on the Bill, I acknowledge that there is a deep frustration among people in Northern Ireland on a whole range of issues that progress is not being made. I think we are fast approaching the time when they will want politicians somewhere to do something. If that has to be this place, then, reluctantly, I would agree with him that after this current extension we have to think seriously about making some progress on all the matters that have been discussed. It would have to be, in my view, strongly based on a three-stranded approach, north-south co-operation with the Irish Government, and co-operation between the two Governments through the British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference.
I have focused a lot on process in last night’s debate and in my speech today, because I want to provide reassurance about the devolved settlement. When I made my speech to move my private Member’s Bill in February 2018, I quoted some of the wit and wisdom of people in south Armagh and Northern Ireland, and some of the Ulsterisms that were used. I have to say that it is not funny anymore. This is really serious and it needs to be addressed. This House has failed LGBT people in Northern Ireland before. It failed a generation of people in Northern Ireland by not decriminalising homosexuality, and condemned them to discrimination, to abuse and to living in fear many years after that stopped being the case in the rest of the UK. It failed people in Northern Ireland by not extending same-sex marriage when it became the law here, making people in Northern Ireland less valued than the rest of us. Tonight, we have the chance to do the right thing. People in Northern Ireland, and indeed across Britain and Ireland, are watching. I, for one, am not going to let them down. I hope colleagues do not let them down either.

Maria Miller: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for St Helens North (Conor McGinn), who made a powerful argument for extending same-sex marriage across Northern Ireland. I was the Minister who did not extend same-sex marriage to Northern Ireland at the time, because of the devolution settlement, so I viscerally understand his arguments. I regret that that was not done when the legislation was put in place for England and Wales.
I spent many hours at the Dispatch Box making arguments similar to those that the hon. Gentleman made about the importance of equal marriage. The state  has no right to discriminate against people on the basis of their sexuality, and we have laws that prohibit that. As marriage is a fundamental part of our society, we should encourage more people to be married, including those in same-sex relationships. He is right that we need to make this change, but today’s debate will be about whether this is the place to do so. Does this debating Chamber and body of people have the right to do that? If we had that right, we would have exercised it when the initial legislation came through. I will listen closely to the Minister’s response before I make a decision on whether to support new clause 1. My heart tells me that it is the right thing to do, but my head is yet to be convinced that this is the right place to do it.
At the heart of my comments are new clauses 10 to 12, in the name of the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy), and amendment 9, in the name of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson). The Women and Equalities Committee did a detailed and forensic analysis of the current situation on abortion in Northern Ireland. That was because of the report by the convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women, which was published last year, and our concerns about the evidence that was put before us by individuals and organisations representing a range of beliefs and positions in Northern Ireland.
I will not go through all the recommendations in that report; I will focus on the key recommendation, which the Committee almost unanimously believed to be the change that should be made. It was about mums and dads facing the appalling prospect of their unborn baby dying before it is born or shortly after, because it has been diagnosed with what is called a fatal foetal abnormality. Our Committee felt strongly that the law needed to change in this respect forthwith—quickly, immediately—because of the impact that that was having on people’s lives and wellbeing, as well as the threat to their mental and physical health.
Hon. Members will be aware that cases are before the courts and will be going before the Supreme Court for consideration. There has already been partial consideration of the issue, following which the Supreme Court said that there was a very real prospect that the law in Northern Ireland contravened human rights. As a Parliament we should be concerned that not every woman in our constituencies, wherever they might be, enjoys the same access to care and support. If the women in my constituency were facing the prospect of having to carry a baby that was going to die, I would man the barricades to change that law.

Huw Merriman: My right hon. Friend, who chairs the Select Committee, is making an excellent speech. The judgment of the Supreme Court—the case was lost on a technicality—made it quite clear that Parliament is out of step with its UN treaty obligations. Does she agree that it is regrettable that despite that, Sarah Ewart has been forced to go through the High Court in Belfast, when we could have changed the law and avoided that outcome?

Maria Miller: My hon. Friend gets to the nub of the matter. The human rights organisation in Northern Ireland did not have standing to take a case, because of  a strange error in the way that the law was drafted. Presumably, that could be put right quickly—possibly through this Bill—so that individuals such as Sarah Ewart would not have to go through this process, which is heartbreaking and impossibly difficult for anyone, let alone someone who has lost a child in this way.
New clauses 10 to 12 go much further than the Select Committee’s recommendations, and they talk about implementing the CEDAW report in full. I have no problems with the CEDAW report. I think it is comprehensive and compelling, and the Government should address it in full, because we are signatories to this agreement—as a well-respected international country, we adhere to the rules and regulations that we sign up to. However, hon. Members should be careful before finalising their thoughts on whether to support new clauses 10 to 12.
The CEDAW report calls on the Government to repeal sections 58 and 59 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. Doing so would go much further than simply making it lawful for an individual to undertake an abortion if they have had a diagnosis of a fatal foetal abnormality, and it would have significant repercussions not only in Northern Ireland but in England. I ask hon. Members to consider whether this Bill is the most appropriate avenue to make such a fundamental change.
I do not disagree with the sentiment of the hon. Member for Walthamstow. She has consistently made a powerful argument in many similar debates, and one day we will get the opportunity to debate the matter in full. However, it does not feel right to me to make these changes through a Bill that has absolutely nothing to do with England and Wales, on a matter that is fundamental to many hon. Members who are probably not here today because they might not have realised the implications of her new clause.

Vicky Ford: My right hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. As a member of the Women and Equalities Committee, I, too, was involved in its detailed inquiry into this very challenging issue, and I completely agree with the cross-party recommendations in that report. I agree that the fundamental issue with new clause 10 is that it affects abortion law across the whole UK, not just in Northern Ireland. I remind her that we made a number of other recommendations in that report to assist women. Does she agree that the Government should consider all the recommendations in the Committee’s report with urgency?

Maria Miller: I thank my hon. Friend for all her work on the Select Committee, of which she is a valuable and valued member. She is right that we cannot look at these things in isolation. There has to be a package of measures. Hon. Members from all parties know that if we were to repeal the law in the way that is recommended in new clauses 10 to 12, we would also have to look fundamentally at the provision of services in Northern Ireland.
The first step is to address the issue of fatal foetal abnormality. I fear dreadfully treading on the toes of my colleagues from Northern Ireland, who represent the men and women who live there. However, in the absence of a functioning Executive, it would be an absolute abrogation of my responsibility as a Member of Parliament not to raise these issues in the House today. I have had conversations with my Northern Ireland colleagues and with members of other parties  who choose not to take their seats here, because I believe it is important for the voices of the people who represent those in Northern Ireland to be heard strongly in this debate, but I do not think it is easy to argue against the factual findings of the Select Committee report.
New clause 10, to put it bluntly, asks the Government to cut and paste the CEDAW report into legislation. I do not think that that would really work, not least because it has profound effects for England and Wales as well, but I do think that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North is absolutely right, in amendment 9, to ask the Government to go further. It is a difficult issue, and sensitivities are acute, but
“placing a duty on the Secretary to State to report on the legal framework on abortion in Northern Ireland with an analysis of how that framework could be amended by Parliament during the period when there is no Executive, subject to a sunset clause”
could be a constructive procedure, including, perhaps, cross-party involvement. I have a great deal of sympathy with the hon. Lady’s approach, which is perhaps a little more tailored to the situation in hand than new clause 10.
These issues are never easy to discuss, but I am not sure that a time when Parliament is already engaged in one of its most difficult discussions about Brexit is the right time for it to be tackling issues relating to the whole United Kingdom through a Bill that focuses on Northern Ireland. That, to me, is not an obvious way of solving the problems. I have enormous sympathy with the new clauses tabled by the hon. Member for Walthamstow, but at this point I do not think I can find it within me to support them, because of the profound implications for my constituents in England and their ability to communicate with me about their thoughts and views, and for our ability to discuss more broadly how we would accommodate those changes in the United Kingdom as a whole.

Nigel Dodds: Thank you, Dame Eleanor, for giving me an opportunity to speak briefly about the new clauses and amendments.
I entirely respect the sincerity of the hon. Member for St Helens North (Conor McGinn) and the way in which he spoke about new clause 1, but I fundamentally disagree with his view that because the Assembly is not sitting at present, it is right for this place to legislate on certain issues but not on others, although I recognise that his approach was that we should legislate across the board.
There are many issues about which people in Northern Ireland feel strongly, including the health service, education, infrastructure investment, jobs, the suicide strategy, mental health and the implementation of the Bengoa report on health and social care. The lack of progress on those issues through legislation and Executive decisions is having massively detrimental effects, but no one has addressed that point today. Instead, Members have picked out certain issues, which I think is the wrong approach, especially when talks are under way and there is a prospect of devolution in the short term.
I entirely accept that if we do not reach that point and there is direct rule, it should be for the House to legislate across the board. It has the right to do so, and we can still have a debate and discuss and argue about  those issues. As the Secretary of State explained yesterday, the purpose of the Bill is simply to maintain the status quo by moving two dates to allow talks to continue, with no election in the meantime. However, that has now been effectively hijacked by a number of Members who want to introduce measures to override the Assembly, which I think is wrong and which is certainly not in keeping with the vast number of representations that have been made to me and to other Members from across Northern Ireland by constituents who have said that it is not an appropriate way in which to proceed.
I am particularly concerned about the wording of new clause 1. It appears to propose that, if the Assembly is not already up and running, there will be no further vote in the House before the regulations are implemented and the law is changed. When I intervened on the hon. Gentleman, he did not dispute that. Here we have a major issue: a change that will not be subject to any further vote in the House before its implementation, but will be subject to the procedure of annulment. I think that that is a highly questionable approach.

Sammy Wilson: Does my right hon. Friend not find it amazing that when we spent literally hours in the House debating the Henry VIII clauses during the Brexit debate, those clauses were railed against by Labour Members and members of other parties, whereas Labour is now proposing that Henry VIII powers be granted to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland so that regulations can be introduced with no scrutiny and, in fact, never even presented to the House?

Nigel Dodds: My right hon. Friend has made an important point. We are to have four hours of debate on this and a number of other devolved issues, but that is not the way in which such laws should be made. Members who have railed against emergency procedures, a lack of proper scrutiny and all the rest of it would be the first to protest if we were dealing with a different issue.

Owen Smith: Does the right hon. Gentleman not accept that there have been instances in the recent past when we have legislated in this place on what has ostensibly been a devolved competence? I am thinking of, for example, the provision to extend access to medicinal cannabis to Northern Ireland.

Nigel Dodds: I think that the hon. Gentleman is mistaken in relation to that issue, but there have been instances in which legislation has been passed for the whole UK, which was entirely appropriate because there was no dispute about it.

Conor McGinn: May I draw the right hon. Gentleman’s attention to his own new clauses 15 and 17, which propose the introduction of legislation relating to the armed forces covenant and the definition of a victim through exactly the same process through which I am proposing legislation relating to same-sex marriage?

Nigel Dodds: I shall deal with new clauses 15 and 17 when we discuss the second batch of new clauses and amendments, but the issues that they concern are UK-wide. The definition of a victim should be a UK-wide definition, and the military covenant should apply across the UK.  That is the difference between the hon. Gentleman and me: I am taking a UK-wide approach, while he wants to override the devolution settlement at a time when there is a prospect of devolution being restored.
I referred earlier to issues on which there has been a consensus, a cross-party view that something should happen. The Government have always been willing to take such issues on board, as, indeed, have the Opposition. One example is the Historical Institutional Abuse Inquiry. All the party leaders have written to say that that is one area in which they would be content for something to be done, but that had been agreed by everyone across the community.
In this context, it is clearly appropriate to mention the sad passing this morning of Sir Anthony Hart, the chair of the inquiry which did such fantastic work in relation to victims of historical institutional abuse. It is a shock to us all, and I am sure that I speak for the whole House in extending sympathies and condolences to his family. That inquiry, and the sterling work done by Sir Anthony and all involved with it, has resulted in recommendations that have not been able to be taken forward, and indeed the Assembly was collapsed just a few weeks before proposals could be tabled. We urged that the Assembly not be collapsed to allow these proposals to be taken forward, but that was ignored by the Sinn Féin Minister of Finance. The fact of the matter is that there is one area where we do have total cross-party consensus, and we would certainly be supportive of taking that forward.
There is not cross-party support on the other areas, but on abortion there would certainly be a degree of concern among all parties in Northern Ireland about legislating; although the Northern Ireland Assembly parties across the board may take a different view on what needs to be reformed, they might not agree with Members here about the extent to which reform should happen in terms of time limits and the other aspects.

Ian Paisley Jnr: The point my right hon. Friend makes about the late Sir Anthony Hart’s inquiry is all the more poignant and pointed when we consider that the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee unanimously agreed that we should ask the Government to deal with this issue, and the point was ignored by the Government.

Nigel Dodds: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for pointing out that and the role the Select Committee has played in relation to it. That was a very useful and important report that again demonstrated that there was cross-party support for those recommendations to be taken forward.

Emma Little Pengelly: I had the opportunity to work very closely with the late Sir Anthony Hart. He conducted the inquiry in an incredibly professional way; it was very victim-centred. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be a poignant and appropriate legacy to Sir Anthony Hart if this Government acted swiftly to implement those recommendations in terms of redress that he has just recently concluded?

Nigel Dodds: Yes, I agree; that is entirely right. This points to where we should be taking things forward in the interim. There are certain issues that have total  cross-party support in Northern Ireland and where the demand has come from the Northern Ireland parties to the Government to do something. That is entirely different from Members here seeking to impose changes that are not agreed by the parties in Northern Ireland and when other pressing concerns—mental health and suicide strategy, health, education, jobs—are not being put forward for consideration at this stage. Moreover, this is not the appropriate vehicle through which to do this.

Maria Miller: As has been said, it is important for us to be taking forward things that have got agreement. The recommendations of the working group on fatal foetal abnormality, which was commissioned by two Northern Ireland Ministers in 2016, have now been published; does the right hon. Gentleman agree that they present another example of how we could, in this period where we do not have a functioning Executive, move forward even on an issue as sensitive as that?

Nigel Dodds: The right hon. Lady will be aware that there are court proceedings in relation to that issue that are due to be concluded in September. Certainly, I agree with the principle that issues where there is a cross-party view that is supported across the board by the parties in Northern Ireland, and where the request comes from the parties, should be looked at with favour and support and approval by the Government and, indeed, this House as a whole, but that should not be the case where there is no such consensus and agreement.
Finally, I wish to mention pensions for victims. Victims have suffered grievously in Northern Ireland over many years, and many of them are dying without seeing proper justice on the one hand and without getting some of the recompense that has been recommended that they should receive from many years back. Therefore, I am entirely sympathetic to and supportive of the idea of having a report and certainly debates in relation to this matter. We address in our amendment the UK-wide definition of a victim, because there is a problem in Northern Ireland.
People do not like the idea of an amnesty for past crimes, obviously, but they also do not support the idea that those who injure themselves in the commission of a terrorist act—for instance the Shankill bomber who went out with the purpose of murdering people and who did murder people—should be regarded as victims as a result of the injuries suffered in the same way as the people they maimed and caused terrible injuries to through their criminal acts. That is an unconscionable situation and this issue is holding up the payment of pensions to victims in Northern Ireland. That needs to be addressed. Therefore, again, I support amendments that call for that to be looked at and to be reported upon and to be taken forward.
It is very important that we have a sense of perspective in this debate. These are very sensitive issues. It is not right that we should drive a coach and horses through the devolution settlement in relation to certain issues that people feel passionately and deeply about here but that are the subject of devolved powers in Northern Ireland, and at a time when there are real prospects of discussions taking place among the political parties leading to an agreement for the restoration of devolution. The effect of taking decisions before agreements are  reached is to skew those negotiations. As has been said, some people will say, “If we’re going to achieve certain outcomes, we don’t need to negotiate; we don’t need to reach agreements.” That is entirely counterproductive.
I ask Members to think very carefully, whatever their views are on these issues, which I respect deeply; they, too, should respect the views of people in Northern Ireland. They should also respect the devolved settlement and the fact that talks are going on in Northern Ireland and that these are very sensitive matters, and these talks could be impacted greatly by what we do here today.

Nick Herbert: I rise to support new clause 1 and to agree with everything that the hon. Member for St Helens North (Conor McGinn) said in moving it. I take very seriously the points the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Nigel Dodds) has just made, as I am sure do many on both sides of the Committee. It is not a small matter for this House to decide that it will legislate in this area; we should consider it carefully, and I have done so and want to explain why I have reached the decision that it is right for the UK Parliament to step in at the moment.
First, we need to reflect on the fact that 28 countries worldwide have now legislated for, or enabled through a court or referendum decision, same-sex marriage: Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Colombia, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, Ireland, Luxembourg, Malta, Mexico, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, South Africa, Spain, Sweden and most recently Ecuador through the courts and Taiwan through its legislature. Costa Rica will make it 29, as of course England and Wales and Scotland have legislated too.
Too often, people find themselves saying that the UK has provided for same-sex marriage, but that is not true. It is anomalous, as has been said already in this debate, that citizens in one part of the United Kingdom cannot avail themselves of something that many people regard to be a fundamental right: to be able to enter into a marriage with the person they love.
Two arguments therefore have to be addressed. The first is that, in spite of it being the right thing to do, the UK Parliament should refrain from making such provision because it should be a devolved matter. The problem is that we do not have a functioning Executive in Northern Ireland. We have not had devolved government for some time, and notwithstanding the optimism of the right hon. Member for Belfast North—I hope he is right—we might not have it for some time going forward. Meanwhile, there are couples in Northern Ireland who do not enjoy the same rights as those in the rest of the United Kingdom. They wish to get married but are legally prevented from doing so. How much longer will they have to wait?

Angela Eagle: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that this House has been quite patient on this issue, given that it involves a fundamental matter of human rights? Is it not clear that the House’s patience is now running out and that we have to act?

Nick Herbert: I agree entirely with the hon. Lady. It was six years ago that this House legislated for equal marriage in England and Wales. There is a precedent for the proposal in new clause 1: when the Assembly  was suspended in 2004, this House passed the Civil Partnerships Act 2004 to extend civil partnerships to Northern Ireland.
There is consent for this proposal in Northern Ireland itself. The Assembly has voted five times for this measure, and it is only because of the petition of concern that it has not already become law there. That petition could not be exercised now, because there would not be a majority for it in Northern Ireland. So if an Assembly were to be constituted under the current arrangements, it would almost certainly vote for equal marriage, because it is has said repeatedly that it would do so. We are not trespassing on what we know the Assembly wants to do; it is just that it does not exist, so it cannot act. The only body that is competent to act on this matter at the moment is the UK Parliament.

Gavin Robinson: The right hon. Gentleman has outlined a history of events that is not correct. The Northern Ireland Assembly voted against the introduction of same-sex marriage on a straight majority until the last vote, in which a petition was used. He also recognises that we as a party do not have the numbers to table a petition. Had he been here yesterday for our Second Reading debate, he would have heard that the one party that is frustrating the ability of the Northern Ireland Assembly to legislate on this issue is Sinn Féin, the very party that says it wants to introduce it. If the Assembly were restored tomorrow—we have no red lines on whether it is restored or not; we want to see it—we could not prevent the Assembly from legislating on this issue.

Nick Herbert: The hon. Gentleman has made his points, and I read yesterday’s debate very carefully this morning. Nevertheless, there is a majority for this proposal in the Assembly at the moment. That majority has been demonstrated. Crucially, there is also a majority among the public in Northern Ireland, but who is speaking for them at the moment? A Sky Data poll last year showed 76% support for equal marriage in Northern Ireland, with fewer than one in five opposing it. On any issue like this, that is a very large majority indeed. I believe that the case is made. We have waited for some time, and we have been patient. It is now right and proper that the UK Parliament should act.

Sylvia Hermon: The right hon. Gentleman outlined the problem in Northern Ireland as one in which those in same-sex relationships are unable to be married, whereas they can be in the rest of the United Kingdom. The situation is actually more complicated than that, as was touched upon by the right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller), who was the responsible Minister when the legislation was taken through this House. A problem exists for those who are in a same-sex marriage in Scotland, Wales or England and who come to Northern Ireland, in that as soon as they arrive in Northern Ireland, their marriage becomes a civil partnership. That cannot be right within the United Kingdom, can it?

Nick Herbert: I strongly agree with the hon. Lady. This shows that people in Northern Ireland simply do not have the same rights as those in the United Kingdom, and that is something we should act upon.
There is a case, on its own merits, for introducing same-sex marriage, and I just want to say to the Committee that, frankly, this argument has been won. It has been won in the country and it has been won in this House.  One by one, the arguments against this reform fell away. First, there is no compulsion involved. The legislation that we introduced in England and Wales protects religious freedom. Churches are not compelled to introduce same-sex marriages in their own institutions. That is a matter for them. No individual is compelled to enter a same-sex marriage. There is a very simple remedy if someone does not like the idea of same-sex marriage: they should not enter into one; it is not compulsory.
Secondly, why should we not allow people to enter into an institution by which they will demonstrate a lifelong commitment to each other and make that commitment in front of their friends and family? What harm is done by this legislation? We as hon. Members know very well that we pass laws and vote for things every day that make people profoundly unhappy or that irritate them. We put on taxes, we restrict freedoms, we do things that irritate sections of our communities, and we do these things because we think they are right. It is not often that we pass legislation that has a single effect. The single effect of the legislation for England and Wales that was passed six years ago in this House was to make people happy. It was to allow people to enter into lifelong commitments that brought moments of enormous happiness to them and their families.
That is why public opposition to same-sex marriage has continued to fall away. I have enormous respect for those of my hon. Friends who voted against that legislation but who have now admitted that they were wrong. One by one, Members on the Conservative Benches have stood up and said that they were wrong to oppose the measure, just as some Members have said that they were wrong to oppose civil partnerships. They have seen that the legislation has been an unalloyed force for good.

Bob Stewart: I was one of those who stood up and said that they had got it wrong. I got it wrong, and I now support the legislation. I agree with this proposal, and I agree with the one on abortion, but the problem is that this is like a crack in the dam. If we crack the dam, more and more things will come through. I do not mind that, because I am beginning to think that we will have to have direct rule. I would like very much for us to consider all the problems in Northern Ireland and to deal with them. If we do not have an effective Executive in Northern Ireland, we are going to have to do that anyway. What we have to realise today is that if we pass these new clauses, it will be the thin end of the wedge and other things will, and should, follow, because they are very important to people in Northern Ireland.

Nick Herbert: I commend my hon. Friend for saying once again that he was wrong in opposing the same-sex marriage legislation. I am grateful for that, and I admire him for having the courage to say it. The reason I do not think that this is the thin end of the wedge, however, is that at the end of the day this is about something quite fundamental—namely, equality. I do not think that introducing a measure to ensure and promote equality can ever be described as the thin end of the wedge. I think it is the right thing to do.
Four years ago, the Supreme Court of the United States took a landmark decision that I hope will not be reversed, in the case of Obergefell v. Hodges, to allow  same-sex marriage throughout the United States. In the concluding remarks of the lead judgment—which have been much quoted since—Justice Kennedy set out brilliantly why this is the right thing to do:
“No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family. In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were. As some of the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage embodies a love that may endure even past death. It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfilment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilisation’s oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law.”
That is all we are asking for the people of Northern Ireland today.

Stella Creasy: It is a genuine pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert), and I agree with every word he said.
I will be proud to vote today for new clause 1 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for St Helens North (Conor McGinn), who is now leaving the Chamber. He made an incredibly powerful speech. I also support amendment 9.
I rise to address new clause 10 with great reluctance, because none of us wanted the governance of Northern Ireland to be in this position today. We all want to speak up for the importance of devolution but, as my hon. Friend said, human rights delayed are human rights denied. New clause 1, new clause 10 and amendment 9 all speak to the human rights challenges. I understand the concerns of the hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) about it being the thin end of the wedge, but I see this as a temporary way of dealing with something that this place is centrally about: protecting the human rights of every UK citizen.
Those of us who are strong defenders of devolution and human rights tread carefully. Section 26 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 charges this place with upholding our international obligations for the whole United Kingdom, even when the Assembly is sitting. As we have now not had an Assembly for two years, and as it is unlikely the Assembly will have sat for three years at this rate, it is even more important that we ask what our obligations are so that we do not see human rights denied.
The Women and Equalities Committee has been very powerful in stating that on those two specific issues, especially in the past couple of years, our country has been censured for what is happening in Northern Ireland. Members will know that I am a passionate defender of women’s rights, and I believe powerfully that we will never have true freedom if women do not have the same control over their bodies as men. If we say to women that we will force them to continue an unwanted pregnancy, they will always be second-class citizens compared with their male counterparts. That is exactly what we are saying to our fellow UK citizens in Northern Ireland. As the right hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs said, these amendments are about equality. They are about treating every UK citizen equally; in Northern Ireland there are no such rights.
The right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) talked powerfully of fatal foetal abnormalities. I cannot imagine what it is like for somebody who so desperately  wants a baby to discover that their baby will not live. All our hearts have gone out to Sarah Ewart, but those court cases were not just about fatal foetal abnormalities; they were about sexual violence, too.
We are not living up to our obligations to protect the rights of the women of Northern Ireland—those 1 million women are UK citizens. If we do not act on these issues and find a way, in the absence of an Assembly, however temporary, to deal with this issue, it will not only be Sarah Ewart who has to go to court. We will be in the invidious position of rape victims having to go to court to have their rights upheld. That is torture, which is why the UN Committee against Torture censured our country and said that how we treat the women of Northern Ireland is torturous.
That is why it is right that we find a way through. I am very conscious of the words of the Women and Equalities Committee, which said that the Government need to set out a clear framework and timeline for addressing the breaches of women’s rights in Northern Ireland, which have been identified by CEDAW, if there is no Government in Northern Ireland to take action.

Ian Paisley Jnr: The hon. Lady knows where I stand on this issue, and my position is very different from hers. She rightly indicates that there needs to be a framework, but if new clause 10 were to become law, abortion would take place in Northern Ireland without any framework whatsoever. It would be completely and totally unregulated. We have no idea of the scope. Would we have terminations at 12 weeks, 28 weeks or right up to birth?
We would have no regulations on where abortions could take place. There would be no regulatory framework on who could carry out those abortions, and there would be no regulatory framework on sex selection or, indeed, disability denial. All those matters require careful and considered regulation and legislation. Unfortunately, new clause 10 is not careful and does not give the time or scope for any of these matters to be properly considered.

Stella Creasy: I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising those issues, which are myths that need to be dispelled, although I understand his concerns. The CEDAW report talks about the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, which is why a woman who is raped in Northern Ireland and seeks a termination after becoming pregnant will face a longer prison sentence than her attacker. It is why, in November, a mother who bought abortion pills online for her child—she was a child, because she was a 15-year-old girl in an abusive relationship—faces a jail sentence.
We must deal with the effects of this anachronistic, ancient law in Northern Ireland. My constituents, and constituents across England and Wales, are exempted from that Act, but it does not mean a free-for-all. In fact, new clause 10 is crafted in terms of statutory instruments under the Northern Ireland Act.
I am mindful that the British Medical Association, the Royal College of General Practitioners, the Royal College of Midwives, and the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists have all set out proposals for medical guidance. Absolutely, abortion should be regulated. Absolutely, there should be clear guidelines. Nobody is seeking to change the term limit we have in England and Wales. The question is whether the law should be  underpinned by criminal legislation or medical regulation, which is what new clause 10 would allow us to consider. It would therefore allow us to answer the question about the inequality of experience between my constituents in Walthamstow and the constituents of the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) in Northern Ireland.
A thousand women from Northern Ireland have had to travel to England and Wales to have an abortion in the last year, and those are just the women who can travel. What a horrible, lonely journey to ask somebody to make at the most vulnerable moment in their life. That option is not available to women in an abusive relationship, who cannot get childcare or who cannot afford to travel.
New clause 10 is carefully crafted to respect the fact that, at the moment, we do not have an Assembly. If there were an Assembly, it could step in and deal with the criticisms that have been levelled at us by the UN. It could deal with the decisions made by the Supreme Court, which have not been enacted only because of a technicality. New clause 10 would mean these situations can be dealt with. Medical regulations could be introduced, but it would be done through a statutory instrument. It does not prescribe what the regulations would be, so it does not remove any of the protections the hon. Gentleman talks about.

Emma Little Pengelly: You have said many times, and it has caused distress, that a woman in Northern Ireland who is raped and seeks an abortion could face a longer jail sentence than her attacker. I have corresponded with the Police Service of Northern Ireland on this matter because of the concern you have caused out there. PSNI has confirmed that no woman has been sent to prison for an abortion-related offence, and I am meeting PSNI to talk it through.
Secondly, the issue about regulations is important. Regardless of whether you perceive abortion to be a right, the regulations are not prescriptive about some of the details highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley), but your proposal would mean there is no scrutiny of the regulations.

Rosie Winterton: Order. You do not directly address another Member but address your comments through the Chair. This is obviously a sensitive debate, so it is important that we stick to the rules.

Stella Creasy: Thank you, Dame Rosie.
It is simply not the case that people have not been prosecuted. A mother is facing a jail sentence in November. We know that, in 2017, a man and woman accepted formal cautions under OPA for the same offence, and the charges were withdrawn only after the judge imposed a ban on identifying the woman due to the heightened risk of her suicide because of her distress at the situation. We know that, in 2016, a 21-year-old pleaded guilty to procuring her own abortion by poison after she bought pills online and her flatmate reported her to the police. Prosecution is a very real prospect in Northern Ireland, but it is not a real prospect for my constituents in another part of the United Kingdom who are in exactly the same situation.

Emma Little Pengelly: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Stella Creasy: Forgive me, but I have given way. I am conscious that other people want to speak in this debate. I understand the concerns of the right hon. Member for Basingstoke, who is no longer here, but I genuinely believe that if we do not address the international obligations that we have—and that this legislation leaves us unable to address at the moment—we will continue to see these cases. We will continue to see the distress of women in Northern Ireland, and that will be a human rights issue.
There is a more fundamental point here, which the right hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs talked about: if we are prepared to jettison some human rights and say that they are not as important as others, that is the thin end of the wedge. Are we going to say that in Northern Ireland people will not have the same rights of freedom of expression, of protection from slavery and of protection from torture, and the same rights to life? Specific human rights, and specific international reports and obligations that we have been part of, are at the heart of this amendment. We will not be able to stand up and champion human rights in other parts of the world, because other countries will rightly turn to us and say, “Hang about, what about your own backyard? What are you doing there?”
I understand that, if it was not for the fact that we do not have an Assembly, this would absolutely not be the right way forward, but we do not have an Assembly and we will not have one any time soon. This is about a power of a statutory instrument; it is not about specifying what should be in that statutory instrument, and so there is plenty of scope to address these issues. Medical guidelines have been prepared by campaigners in Northern Ireland, be they Alliance for Choice, the London-Irish Abortion Rights Campaign, Together for Yes or those medical agencies.
There is a simple point here: each of us should want, in the work that we do at a national and international level, the same rights that we want for our own constituents. I would like every woman in Walthamstow to be able to have the choice—to have a safe, legal and local abortion if she wants it. We all know that stopping people accessing abortion legally does not stop abortion. The cases where there have been prosecutions, where people have been killed and where we see online the stories of these women tell us that abortion is still happening for Northern Irish women, but right now that issue is being exported, rather than dealt with as an equalities issue. So I ask the Committee: how much longer are the women of Northern Ireland expected to wait? How much more are they expected to suffer before we speak up—the best of what this place does—as human rights defenders, not human rights deniers?

Fiona Bruce: I find myself in agreement with the concerns expressed by the Chair of the Women and Equalities Committee about the far-reaching implications of new clause 10, which relates to abortion law changes in Northern Ireland but has implications for England and Wales, too. So I am against that proposal, and new clauses 11 and 12. This is not the time, nor the place, to be making such changes, which are of course completely unconstitutional, bearing in mind that devolution has ensured that abortion is an issue that Northern Ireland and its own Assembly have had authority to make decisions on for almost 100 years.

Huw Merriman: Does my hon. Friend recognise that treaty obligations are a matter for Parliament, so this is not actually an issue about devolution? The Supreme Court has made that point, too.

Fiona Bruce: I will come on to that point in considerable detail in my speech, if Members will bear with me.

Emma Little Pengelly: I wish to touch on a point that was raised earlier. Does the hon. Lady agree that things are being said about this, particularly in relation to threatened imprisonment, that are not true and causing additional distress? In relation to the recommendations, they are simply recommendations on the way this could be done. It is right and proper that this is scrutinised to see exactly what the detail should be, and it should not be done by way of simple regulation or statutory instrument.

Fiona Bruce: I absolutely agree. If Members will permit me, I will go into detail on those concerns.
Last year, this House debated a similar Bill and many similar arguments were aired when we debated the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy), which was passed and became section 4 of the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation and Exercise of Functions) Act 2018. That section required the Secretary of State to
“issue guidance to senior officers of all Northern Ireland departments which will specify how to exercise their functions in relation to—
(a) the incompatibility of the human rights of the people of Northern Ireland with the continued enforcement of sections 58 and 59 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861 with the Human Rights Act 1998”
within three months of the Act passing. That guidance was issued by the Secretary of State in December. She clarified that:
“No declaration of incompatibility under section 4 of the Human Rights Act 1998 has been made by the Courts in respect of sections 58 and 59 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861.”
She added that the guidance notes that it does not, and cannot be used to change the current law on abortion. Section 4 did not require any further reporting on the law or its operation in Northern Ireland. So here we are again with Members seeking to put forward a considerable number of amendments relating to substantial changes to the law on abortion in Northern Ireland, despite this issue being within the devolved competence of the Assembly.
I am disappointed that new clause 10, which seeks to change the law substantially, has been selected, along with new clauses 11 and 12, and I wish to make three initial points on that proposal. First, it clearly overreaches the devolution settlement and sets a precedent that should concern all the devolved jurisdictions. Secondly, the people of Northern Ireland would have no opportunity to have a say in the decision, which does not respect democracy, if we were to pass these new clauses today. Thirdly, they require the Secretary of State to bring forward regulations, but I understand that those will be unamendable. This is no way to legislate for sensitive matters such as abortion.
The amendments tabled by the hon Member for Walthamstow rely on the authority of CEDAW and its committee, which is a minor sub-committee of the UN that looks at that convention. It is important for  this House to note that the convention does not provide a right to abortion. That is not my opinion; hon. Members will want to hear the views of Lord Wilson, a Supreme Court Justice in the 2017 case of R (A and B) v. Secretary of State for Health, who said:
“The conventions and the covenant to which the UK is a party carefully stop short of calling upon national authorities to make abortion services generally available. Some of the committees go further down that path.”—
as the CEDAW committee has—
“But, as a matter of international law, the authority of their recommendations is slight.”
The hon. Lady also suggests that, since the CEDAW committee made various recommendations on the law on abortion in Northern Ireland, the Secretary of State must act. But the Northern Ireland Act 1998 devolved human rights to the Northern Ireland Executive. In the case where the Supreme Court makes a declaration of incompatibility under section 4 of the Human Rights Act 1998, which it has not, it is for the Northern Ireland Assembly to act. However, the hon. Lady is suggesting the Secretary of State must act under section 26 of the Northern Ireland Act—she relies heavily on that. It requires action from the Secretary of State if proposed actions by the Assembly are considered incompatible with international obligations or she considers actions should be taken to give effect to international obligations. However, the guidance issued in December 2018, which I have just cited, made it clear that the Secretary of State does not believe that we are in either of those situations. Her guidance did not even mention the CEDAW committee, upon which the hon Member for Walthamstow relies for authority. That is not surprising, as it is a committee with no judicial authority.
Professor Mark Hill, QC has written extensively about the authority of the CEDAW committee and its report. He says in paragraph 4 of his opinion:
“The Committee does not have the capacity or standing to give a binding adjudication on the United Kingdom’s obligations under CEDAW or on the proper interpretation of CEDAW. The interpretative function under the CEDAW is reserved, not to the Committee, but to the International Court of Justice.”
He goes on to say in paragraph 5:
“The Committee’s views are not binding interpretation of the law, nor do they contribute to customary international law when approaching the interpretation of these rights.”
I make no apology for quoting at length from the opinion: it is really important because of the reliance of the hon. Member for Walthamstow on the CEDAW committee. Professor Hill says:
“The text of international treaties such as CEDAW are carefully crafted expressions of intent and belief. There is no reference to abortion in the text of CEDAW. There is nothing in the text of CEDAW which requires a state party to allow abortion on specified grounds and/or decriminalise abortion generally. The absence of such a provision in the formal text gives a clear indication that no such obligation exists. The International Court of Justice has not interpreted CEDAW in a manner which departs from the plain wording of the text so as to require a right to abortion or the decriminalisation of abortion to be “read in”.
Finally, Professor Hill says:
“Nevertheless, the Committee, ‘based on its expertise in interpreting [the Convention]’, recommends that abortion be decriminalised in all cases and asserts that ‘States parties are obligated not to penalise women resorting to, or those providing such services [abortion]’. The Committee is not a judicial body, no source is given for its claimed ‘expertise in interpreting’ CEDAW”.
It simply does not have the power it has abrogated to itself to interpret the CEDAW regulations in the way that the hon. Member for Walthamstow proposes.
The Chair of the Women and Equalities Committee referred to its report on abortion in Northern Ireland. The decision on the report was not unanimous. In the minority report, my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall North (Eddie Hughes) said that
“to suggest that the Government establish a framework to address the recommendations of the CEDAW report places a disproportionate and misguided degree of authority on its substantive findings and the limited jurisdiction of this unelected UN Committee.”
Indeed, the non-binding nature of the CEDAW committee’s report was acknowledged by the chief executive of the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission himself in evidence to the Women and Equalities Committee during that inquiry.
Let me turn briefly to the Supreme Court judgment that has been referred to. That judgment is non-binding. It is being used to justify the proposals for change, but there is nothing in it that could be said to give rise to a requirement for such a change. The Supreme Court and Lady Hale made it clear that, although important, CEDAW and other treaties are not binding on our domestic law. There is simply no basis for the Secretary of State to act on the basis of the CEDAW report. New clauses 10, 11 and 12 should be rejected. The law on abortion is a matter for the people of Northern Ireland. I hope we will see the Assembly restored soon so that this matter can be resolved in its right and proper place.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Rosie Winterton: Order. Before I call the shadow Minister, colleagues will be aware that a large number of people wish to contribute. I cannot set a time limit, but let me put it this way: we could certainly get everybody in if everyone spoke for around eight minutes each.

Karin Smyth: I shall endeavour to make sure that everyone has time to speak, Dame Rosie.
The Opposition Front-Bench new clauses each cover three issues in three stages. On each issue, the relevant new clause would: first, compel the Government to bring forward a report on progress to implement change in the relevant area on or before 4 September 2019; secondly, require the Government to bring forward, within two sitting days of that report, a motion to take note of the report; and thirdly, require the Government then to introduce legislation, following the passing of a motion. Let me be clear that any incoming Labour Government would seek to legislate on these issues.
Let me address new clause 1, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for St Helens North (Conor McGinn). I can add little to the speeches made by my hon. Friend and the right hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert) on the subject of gay marriage. I will say, though, that I had the very sad honour to attend the funeral of Lyra McKee in Belfast earlier this year. Much attention has been paid to some of the sentiments expressed at that time. We heard that day that Lyra was making arrangements for her own marriage to her partner. Sitting in the cathedral, I was struck by the huge sadness and irony: we rightly praised this remarkable young woman for being a child of the peace process, for being so openly happy with her own  sexuality, and for having touched every part of Northern Ireland society with her optimism, but while she was making plans for her marriage to the woman she loved, her own society was in essence saying to her, “Away you go to Donegal. You can’t do that here.” What a great testament it would be to her memory, and for the thousands of people throughout Northern Ireland who simply want to express their love, if we could make progress on this issue.

Sylvia Hermon: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for allowing me to intervene at this early stage of her contribution. I have looked closely at the new clauses tabled in the name of the Leader of the Opposition, and I have also looked carefully at the wording of new clause 1, which was tabled by the hon. Member for St Helens North (Conor McGinn). Will the hon. Lady explain how the devolution settlement would be protected in the new clauses for which she is encouraging us to vote? The hon. Member for St Helens North was very careful to draft his new clause to respect the devolution settlement, but that does not appear to be true of the Leader of the Opposition.

Karin Smyth: As the hon. Lady knows, Labour was the architect of much of the devolution throughout the United Kingdom, so we are proud of the devolution settlement. We are asking the House to give a voice to people who currently do not have one. Our proposals would require the Government to bring forward reports to make some progress on issues on which, some two and a half years on—by the time we get through this legislation, it will be some three years on—no progress is being made.
Let me turn my attention to the proposals on abortion. It is some 50 years since this place recognised the cruelty, danger and hypocrisy of the law in respect of women’s rights, but in the late 1960s the Northern Ireland Parliament did not adopt the change. From 1972, when that Parliament was suspended and direct rule was introduced, until 2010, when the criminal justice and policing powers were introduced in Northern Ireland, abortion law was the responsibility of the UK Government. Successive Administrations, both here and in Belfast, have turned a blind eye to this issue over the past 50-plus years and hoped that it would go away. Continually, each year, 1,000 women travel for abortions.
Last night and today, we have yet again heard exemplified the arguments on whether this is a human rights or a devolution issue. We are citing laws—both here and in the European Court and the Supreme Court—regarding whose responsibility this is, which particular legislation or Act we want to be mindful of, whether we have suddenly become cloaked in the glory of devolution or whether this is a human rights issue. But I ask all hon. Members to hear the testimony of the women who are involved and their voices because this is not going to go away. Whether these women are fleeing abuse, domestic violence or rape, know that their baby cannot live, have concerns for their own health, have family reasons, or do not wish to be pregnant, we have to trust women.
The Supreme Court’s opinion was crystal clear that the UK is in breach, yet we are still making women take their cases and relive the trauma of their travelling.  The women in Northern Ireland are being caught in this absurd political ping-pong across the Irish sea and it is simply time for it to come to an end.

Hannah Bardell: When we first started to debate these issues, I said to the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) that I would listen and meet women from Northern Ireland. I did that: I met with Denise Phelan and Sarah Ewart. Nothing could have prepared me for hearing about their experiences. I cannot even imagine what they have been through. Is it not time to stop making women tell their stories and being re-traumatised just so that they can get basic human rights? Is it not time that that changed?

Karin Smyth: I wholeheartedly agree. I commend the hon. Lady and others. Women have travelled here to tell us about those experiences. I commend hon. Members, whatever their views, to take time to listen to those experiences. Like her, I heard Denise’s testimony. I learned more when I heard evidence at the hearings of the British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly. The way in which services here are not established to cope with what then happens to people, particularly if they are travelling, and particularly with regard to foetal remains, is just the most shocking thing that I have heard in this place. It really is time that that stops happening and that we stop making these women relive this experience. Let us be very clear: they are determined to do that and they will keep coming forward and supporting each other.
Let me just move on to historical institutional abuse, which is another issue covered by these amendments. May I also join the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Nigel Dodds) and pay tribute to Justice Anthony Hart, who has sadly passed away suddenly today? His diligence and work on the inquiry have helped to shine a light on the suffering of many in Northern Ireland.
Thousands of people were let down when they were placed in the state’s care. That pain has been compounded by the delay in establishing the compensation and redress mechanisms laid down under the recommendations of the Hart inquiry. I understand that representatives of victims and survivors will be in Westminster tomorrow to give evidence on the delay in legislating to provide compensation. That is really helpful to them. They are travelling again to talk to us so we hear what they have to say. Labour has consistently called on the Government to legislate on this issue as it is an urgent matter. It has been said many times in this place that, since the publication of the Hart report, some 30 survivors have passed away. Again, we need to see action now as these people are passing on.
Let me turn to the issue of pensions. We have again called for the implementation of pensions for those seriously injured as a result of the troubles. More than 500 people have been unable to live the lives that many of us have been able to, and to plan for their future with their family and to build up their pensions. I have met many of those people through the Wave project and the South East Fermanagh Foundation. Again, they are travelling here to talk to us. I urge hon. Members, when they have the opportunity, to listen to them and to hear how their lives have been devastated.

James Heappey: I am sure that the hon. Lady is aware that some of the people who have been identified as possible beneficiaries of this pension are former IRA terrorists who injured themselves in the  pursuit of their terrorist activities. Can she confirm that the Opposition are clear that no IRA terrorist should benefit from these pensions?

Karin Smyth: The hon. Gentleman raises what is a hugely controversial subject, as he knows. I have met some of those people, who have challenged me directly on the matter. We know that it is a controversial and difficult subject, but we have the definition from 2006 and it is absolutely our view that that remains and, if it is to be changed, it has to be with the agreement and work-through of the political parties in Northern Ireland.
The pension is a recognition of the suffering of those people as a result of the troubles. Again, we need to make sure that this matter is progressed. There are real victims who are struggling in Northern Ireland and who do not have a voice. It is absolutely incumbent on people here to listen to them and to make progress.

Simon Hoare: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bristol South (Karin Smyth). Having given a fairly lengthy speech on Second Reading last night, the House will be relieved to know that I intend to speak only once in Committee.
The devolution settlement is perfectly clear, as is, I believe, our duty to respect it. Less clear, I suggest, is how we as politicians address the issues raised in the amendments today when devolution is not present, but where there is a clear and pressing call for action. I understand entirely that human rights were devolved under the Northern Ireland Act 1998, but I cannot understand why that was the case. It seems to me that there is an incredibly strong and compelling argument about the universality of human rights for citizens of the United Kingdom and to try to move away from that in some way starts to pick away at some of the fabric of Unionism.

Ian Paisley Jnr: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Simon Hoare: I will not. Having given way many times yesterday, I just want to make my remarks today. The hon. Gentleman will, I am sure, forgive me.
The amendments clearly deal with sensitive issues covering moral, legal and rights considerations. They are being argued with clarity and passion. However, it is my view that this is a process Bill. It has two days of debate. It is not a policy Bill, but rather a housekeeping Bill to ensure that civil servants can keep some sort of show on the road to serve the citizens and residents of Northern Ireland. I want the devolution talks to succeed and I share the hope that the Bill, as suggested by the Secretary of State, will not actually need to become an Act. If it does, I want it to be a clean Act—in other words, an unamended Act.
I say to the Secretary of State and to the Minister on the Front Bench that I am certainly prepared to see the extension of the Bill’s provisions to the short date, but ideally not to the long date—to 21 October, but not to 13 January next year. I believe that I am not alone in thinking that direct rule is not desirable, but the clear message for fresh elections is becoming almost irresistible. We need to be clear that if a drop-dead deadline is useful to concentrate minds in the Brexit debate then so too must it be for the restoration of devolution.
If this Bill is amended, I shall be very frightened—seriously frightened—that that might prove to be a reason, an excuse or a smokescreen to collapse the talks coming  from either end of the spectrum, and that would be lamentable. I do not believe that this House should do anything to jeopardise those fragile talks. I understand entirely the passion that underpins the amendments, but effectively, for the reason given, I intend to abstain on all amendments this afternoon. I will also abstain on Third Reading if the Bill is amended. I do not think that that is an inappropriate stance for the Chair of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee to take.
In the words of Bob Dylan, someone whom I have not knowingly quoted before, the times they are a-changin’. Politics in this place and in Northern Ireland will injure itself—possibly irreparably—if it seeks to set its face against the arguments of change that we are hearing today. It is my view that it is not a question of whether change is delivered, but how and in which forum. It appears that profound social change is coming to Northern Ireland. That change is going to be authored either here in Westminster or in Belfast, but the issues articulated by the hon. Members for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) and for St Helens North (Conor McGinn) can no longer be dodged or fudged.
The choice of where, how and by which mechanism that change is delivered will be in the hands of those involved with the talks. I impress upon them—not that I believe that the impression needs to be made—the urgency of the need for speedy success. I hope that the parties involved in those talks are seized of their responsibility, because the next few weeks, as far as the future political arrangements of Northern Ireland are concerned, really are the last chance saloon.

Sammy Wilson: There is great dismay in Northern Ireland at the way a Bill described by the Chair of the Select Committee as a process Bill that is narrowly focused on a particular issue—how to keep Northern Ireland government going during a period when we do not have devolution, and how to get devolution up and running again—has been hijacked by those who have their own particular interests in specific issues, and who are now using the Bill as an attempt to drive through that agenda.
I do not intend to enter into arguments about whether we should have same-sex marriage in Northern Ireland or whether there should be a change in the law relating to abortion. I have totally different views from those expressed in the Chamber today, but that is not what the debate on the Bill ought to have been about in the first place. This debate is about the narrow issues in the Bill. The other issues that have been introduced have been introduced in a way that does not do justice to this House; that creates great dangers in Northern Ireland, especially when there is a sensitive talks process going on; and indeed, that angers many people in Northern Ireland whose views will be ignored if the amendments are passed today.
I want to say three things about the amendments and the reaction of some Members of this House. First, there is a very clear inconsistency. These matters are devolved. It really does not matter whether there is a devolved Assembly in operation at the moment or not; they are still devolved issues.

Hannah Bardell: It kind of does.

Sammy Wilson: The hon. Lady says from a sedentary position, “It kind of does.” If it kind of does, why are those who are saying that we should interfere on the  issue of same-sex marriage and abortion not being consistent and arguing that we should be using the powers of this House and bringing back to this House all the other issues, many of which are also human rights issues, such as the human rights of people who need special education to get special education, and the human rights of people who need life-saving operations to have life-saving operations? I do not hear any siren calls from the people who are saying, “Yes, it kind of does matter that there is no devolution in Northern Ireland.” If it does, let us bring other matters back to this House.

Emma Little Pengelly: Looking around the Chamber, it strikes me that there are a number of people present who were not here for yesterday’s debate, when we talked about a range of these issues. Whenever we talk about human rights, it is important to say that there are people sitting on waiting lists, when one of the fundamental human rights is the right to life. People on waiting lists are dying while waiting for cancer treatment and other treatments because there is no Assembly in Northern Ireland and there is a refusal of this place to intervene and try to do something about that. We do care about the rights of people right across the board, but that means that we must have the Northern Ireland Assembly back up and running to deal with these issues.

Sammy Wilson: And indeed, it is significant that some of those who are saying that they do not wish to see steps being taken to deal with those issues are not even prepared to accept that what has stopped those issues being discussed in Northern Ireland is the attitude of Sinn Féin and the refusal of Sinn Féin to get back into government. There is an inconsistency there.

Mhairi Black: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Sammy Wilson: Well, the hon. Lady has just wandered into the Chamber, so I am not going to give way.
The second inconsistency is that many of those who are saying that these limited and very specific powers should be taken by this House are the same people who, during the debate on Brexit legislation, complain time and again that we should not interfere with the powers of devolved Administrations. Indeed, when the Government were suggesting that some of the powers that currently reside with Brussels might be brought back and held at the centre—or at least, that they would wait to discuss whether those powers should be devolved—there was an outcry in this House: “You’re interfering with the devolution settlement and the powers of devolved Assemblies.” Yet the very same people who made those arguments are now saying, “But it’s okay to take away the powers of the Northern Ireland Assembly on these sensitive issues.”
Look at the inconsistency of SNP Members; they cannot even be consistent for 24 hours. Yesterday evening, the SNP spokesman, the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands), said that
“the SNP Benches do not vote on matters devolved to other parts of the UK…We are not blind to the circumstances in Northern Ireland, but we intend to stick to that principle.”—[Official Report, 8 July 2019; Vol. 663, c. 75.]
Well, the Gorilla Glue they used did not work very well because they are not sticking to that principle at all. They have changed their minds on this issue within 24 hours.

Mhairi Black: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Sammy Wilson: No. I have told the hon. Lady that I am not giving way. Despite the fact that SNP Members have railed against this House when it comes to devolved issues for Scotland, they seem to believe that it does not matter when it comes to Northern Ireland.
There is also an inconsistency regarding the way these issues would be dealt with—that is, through regulations introduced by the Secretary of State, which we will never debate in this House and which will not be scrutinised. I can remember many hours of debate in this House about how the power-grabbing and power-snatching desire of the Government must be opposed by those of us who are democrats and who want to stop these Henry VIII powers being taken by a dictatorial Government. But the Members who tabled these amendments today are quite happy to say to the Minister, “Go ahead. Take the powers. Make the regulations. We don’t care whether they are scrutinised. Make sure they are in place for 31 October.” When people look at the way these issues are being dealt with, they will ask, “Where is the consistency?” That is an issue that people in Northern Ireland will be asking questions about, but it is one that this House ought to be asking questions about.
Either we respect devolution and we do not want to see powers granted to Ministers that are unscrutinised, or we do, and if we do in these particular instances, we have to ask ourselves the question, “In what other circumstances will that happen?” If this House decides that government is not going to function in Northern Ireland, as might well be the case, and decides to take these powers back, I, as a democrat, even if this House votes for things that I do not want, will fiercely argue for that.
If this House is a decision-making body, I will have to live with that, as will many of my constituents who might take a different view from people in this House, but at the minute we cannot have it both ways, such that these issues are devolved and the Assembly should decide them, but that the House will take part when individuals in this House decide, “Here is an issue that I’m not keen on.”

Gregory Campbell: In dealing with the overarching issue of the devolution settlement, does my right hon. Friend agree that part of the problem—he seems to be alluding to this—is that some Members of the House seem determined to say, on the one hand, that they want to get all the parties together to agree in Northern Ireland, yet, on the other, that they are going to try to force through issues here that drive a coach and horses through the devolution settlement? Those are the very issues, among others, that divide parties and people in Northern Ireland, rather than uniting them.

Sammy Wilson: Yes, and the danger is that that has an impact on the talks that we are trying to progress to a satisfactory conclusion.
Furthermore, the proposed measures are undemocratic. The views of the Assembly on abortion have been clearly expressed. Back in 2015, the Assembly—not by a vote using a petition of concern, but by a majority, and a big majority at that—decided that it did not want to change abortion legislation in Northern Ireland. Indeed, in October last year, a ComRes survey in Northern Ireland showed that 64% of people in Northern Ireland did not believe that this issue should be decided here, but should be decided in Northern Ireland. Significantly, 66% of women took the view that that should be the case, and, among young people, 72% of those aged between 18 and 32 believed that the issue should be decided locally. That being the case, trying to impose change through this place on the people of Northern Ireland, ignoring the devolution settlement, is obviously undemocratic.
If we are going to take extra powers to this House, why take them on some of the most sensitive issues? They could be taken on other issues where people would accept that, but these are some of the most sensitive. The fact that I have had hundreds of emails on this issue within the past week indicates how sensitive it is. Regardless of whether people agree with my views on the two issues before us, they should ask themselves, “Is this the way this should be dealt with?” I do not believe it is. It is not consistent with previous decisions of the House and it is not democratic.

Edward Leigh: I believe that decisions regarding the law on abortion in Northern Ireland should be a matter for the people who live there and their elected representatives. The whole concept of devolution is based on the idea that different jurisdictions in the United Kingdom are entitled to adopt different approaches to areas within their competence. It was a decision of this House to transfer policing and justice powers to the Northern Ireland Assembly, and Westminster has not sought to impose legislation in this area at any stage during the history of Northern Ireland since 1921.
In 1967, the elected representatives of Northern Ireland determined not to embrace the Abortion Act 1967. As recently as 2016, the elected representatives of the people of Northern Ireland voted not to change the law on abortion in any way. In that sense, Northern Ireland’s law enjoys a more recent democratic sanction than that of any other part of the United Kingdom. This is a matter of great debate in Northern Ireland, but there is robust statistical analysis to show that about 100,000 people who are alive in Northern Ireland today would not be if we had embraced the 1967 Act. I point to what the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) just said: polling shows that a large majority of people in Northern Ireland—64%—say that this is not a matter that should be addressed by Westminster, rising to 66% of women and 72% of 18 to 32-year-olds.
Inevitably and understandably, it will be pointed out that the Executive has not been functioning since January 2017. However, for reasons the Secretary of State has articulated on numerous occasions, there has been a concerted effort to avoid direct rule, which is no way to run a complex society such as Northern Ireland’s; only in extremis should it be considered. If direct rule came in, this House would of course be entitled to legislate on matters that are currently devolved. Ministers would be accountable for legislation and for the operation of  Executive Departments in Northern Ireland. But direct rule has not been introduced, and while this remains the case, this House cannot selectively intervene in relation to some issues as if direct rule were in place without unravelling the wider devolution settlement.

Huw Merriman: If that is so, why did Lady Hale say in the Supreme Court, when looking at whether this is incompatible legally, that Parliament, not the Northern Ireland Assembly, has three choices to correct it?

Edward Leigh: I am going to deal precisely with that point if my hon. Friend will be patient.
The process we are undertaking this afternoon does not assist the talks process—quite the opposite. Some of those who support these amendments and new clauses will claim to generally accept this argument but suggest that abortion is different because there is a human rights imperative to override the devolution settlement. However, significant misinformation has been spread with regard to the status of the law on abortion in Northern Ireland in relation to human rights. Specifically, as we have heard, a number of claims have been made with regard to the CEDAW and a recent report by the CEDAW sub-committee on Northern Ireland.
First, let us consider the position of the legislation on abortion in Northern Ireland in terms of the Human Rights Act 1998 and the European convention on human rights. It is important to stress that at this point there has been no declaration of incompatibility with regard to the law on abortion in Northern Ireland. Yes, in the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission judgment released in June 2018, a majority of judges indicated that if the plaintiff had standing in the case, they would have made a declaration of incompatibility with regard to cases involving fatal foetal abnormalities and in cases of sexual crime. However, these non-binding comments do not constitute a declaration of incompatibility.

Emma Little Pengelly: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Edward Leigh: I had better keep going to obey your ruling, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I want to reply to this point, which has been made in an intervention.
In addition, the Supreme Court, again in non-binding comments, unanimously found that the law on abortion in Northern Ireland was compliant with the European convention on human rights in restricting access to abortion on the grounds of non-fatal disabilities. This part of the judgment is conveniently often forgotten in the rhetoric of proponents of change in the law on abortion in Northern Ireland. One might instead think, listening to the arguments made by some, that the Court found that the decriminalisation of abortion is required on the basis of human rights. That is simply false and needs to be understood as such. Individuals are of course entitled to argue for the decriminalisation of abortion, but they are not entitled to make this claim on the basis of human rights conventions or jurisprudence.
A future panel of the Supreme Court might well make a similar finding to that made in the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission case. Indeed, a properly constituted case is currently before the courts in Northern Ireland with regard to fatal foetal abnormality. However, even if that were the case, the incompatibility  to be resolved would be on the narrow grounds of some of the most tragic and difficult cases imaginable—that of fatal foetal abnormality, not on the grounds of decriminalisation of abortion. Furthermore, section 4(6) of the Human Rights Act makes it clear that even had the Supreme Court determined that a piece of primary legislation was incompatible—which it did not in this case—and made such a declaration, a declaration of incompatibility
“does not affect the validity, continuing operation or enforcement of the provision in respect of which it is given”
and
“is not binding on the parties to the proceedings in which it is made.”
Indeed, Baroness Hale pointed out that, even in cases where there is a ruling of incompatibility, that does not compel the legislature to change the law. It still has what she describes as a “do nothing” option.
That leads me on to CEDAW and the report of the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women. I remind the House of the legal opinion of Professor Mark Hill QC, which points to the reality of CEDAW and the status of the committee. On a point of fact, which needs to be reiterated due to the number of times this has been claimed, the CEDAW committee and the United Nations are not coterminous. The CEDAW committee does not represent the entirety of the United Nations. Professor Hill argues cogently that there is no requirement for the UK or Northern Ireland to act in response to the CEDAW committee’s Northern Ireland report, first because there is no right to abortion under the convention, and secondly because the committee does not have the power to make binding resolutions on the UK. My hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) quoted Professor Hill’s report in some detail, so I do not need to repeat it.
Far too much weight has been put on the recommendations of the CEDAW committee. To imply that the Secretary of State should consider taking action in law as a result is entirely inappropriate. We need to be very careful with regard to the precedent we would set if we passed these amendments and new clauses. Do we want to give reports of UN treaty monitoring bodies this kind of status, irrespective of the topic?
The United Kingdom Supreme Court certainly does not treat reports of the CEDAW committee with the kind of authority that these amendments do. As Lord Wilson, with whom Lord Reed and Lord Hughes agreed, put it in R (A and B) v. Secretary of State for Health—this is an important point:
“The conventions and the covenant to which the UK is a party carefully stop short of calling upon national authorities to make abortion services generally available. Some of the committees go further down that path. But, as a matter of international law, the authority of their recommendations is slight”.
These amendments and new clauses are not required under human rights jurisprudence and could lead to an unhelpful precedent. They tear up the devolution settlement and are a naked power grab that must be rejected.

Diana R. Johnson: I rise to speak to amendment 9, which has cross-party support. I was very pleased that the Chair of the Women  and Equalities Committee, the right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller), spoke in support of my amendment. The amendment would add to clause 3 a new subsection to place a duty on the Secretary of State to report on the legal framework on abortion in Northern Ireland, with an analysis of how the framework can be amended by this Parliament during the period when there is no Executive, subject to a sunset clause, to respect the devolution settlement. That would be done to comply with the human rights obligations of the United Kingdom.
We have had plenty of debate about our human rights responsibilities, and I know that many Members of this House are very concerned about the breaches of women’s human rights in Northern Ireland in relation to abortion. As we have heard, the law is still based on the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, which punishes a woman who terminates her pregnancy or anyone who assists her with up to life imprisonment. Members will also be aware that the Abortion Act 1967 has never applied in Northern Ireland.
The law on abortion in Northern Ireland is one of the most restrictive and harshest in the world—abortion in cases of rape, incest and fatal foetal abnormality is not allowed in Northern Ireland. We know that prosecutions take place. We have heard about the mother who bought tablets off the internet for her daughter, who was in an abusive relationship.

Fiona Bruce: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Diana R. Johnson: I am going to carry on.
We have heard about the woman who had a self-induced abortion because she could not afford to travel to England or Scotland. We have also heard of the 1,000 women who travel to access abortion services in England and Wales.
Following the referendum in the Republic of Ireland, a very stark light is now shining on this archaic law in Northern Ireland. With no Assembly sitting for over two years, we have seen no progress in dealing with this situation, but we have seen the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women finding grave and systematic breaches of women’s human rights in its inquiry into abortion in Northern Ireland in February 2018. The Women and Equalities Committee said:
“The UK Government needs to set out a clear framework and timeline to address the breaches of women’s rights in Northern Ireland under the CEDAW Convention that have been identified by the UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women if there is no government in Northern Ireland to take this action.”
In July 2019, the UN Committee Against Torture said:
“The Committee recommends that the State party ensure that all women and girls in the State party, including in Northern Ireland, have effective access to the means of terminating a pregnancy when not doing so is likely to result in severe pain and suffering, such as when the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest, when the life or health of the pregnant person is at risk and in cases of fatal foetal impairment.”
Some Members have tried to disparage the committees of the United Nations, but the United Kingdom Supreme Court identified a breach of human rights in relation to cases of fatal foetal abnormality, rape and incest—it simply did not make a declaration of incompatibility  because the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission did not have locus, due to a drafting problem with the legislation that needs to be rectified. The Women and Equalities Committee has made it clear that it believes a very strong case is made by the highest court in the land.
There is a case currently making its way through the courts, and it is very likely that there will be a finding of incompatibility in the next few months. I want to pay tribute to that exceptional, strong, brave woman from Northern Ireland, Sarah Ewart, who, supported by Amnesty, is bringing this case through the courts because of her own experience of having to travel to England when she was told that her pregnancy had a fatal foetal abnormality. The reasonable approach to take, recognising that that finding of incompatibility is coming at us in the next few months—

Jeffrey M. Donaldson: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Diana R. Johnson: I need to finish this point.

Jeffrey M. Donaldson: It is on that point.

Diana R. Johnson: I will give way, then.

Jeffrey M. Donaldson: I thank the hon. Lady for giving way. On the point about fatal foetal abnormality and the case involving Sarah Ewart, I have met Sarah on a number of occasions—most recently, last week—and she is very clear that, in respect of a change to the law on abortion in Northern Ireland, she does not want any change beyond dealing with the very narrow issue of fatal foetal abnormality. She is very clear about that, and I think she would want me to put that on the record on her behalf.

Diana R. Johnson: Today, we are looking at the opportunity we have with this Bill, and I think that most Members of this House would agree that legislation that is over 150 years old governing what is essentially a healthcare matter is no longer fit for purpose. That is why we should have the opportunity, as set out in my amendment, to look at the options available to the House when that finding of incompatibility comes down the road.
I want to respect the devolution settlement. That is why I have drafted the amendment with a sunset clause, so that once the Assembly is, we hope, back up and running, whatever we need to do in this House will revert back to the Assembly to carry forward.
I want to reiterate what I said last night. This idea came out of discussions we had on the Joint Committee conducting prelegislative scrutiny of the Domestic Abuse Bill. We found that if the Government wanted to ratify the Istanbul convention on combating violence against women and girls—which I am sure everybody in this House feels is an important thing to do—they could not because that Bill does not cover Northern Ireland, and Northern Ireland does not have legislation on issues such as stalking and coercive control. The idea that came out of that Committee was that we would again legislate for Northern Ireland, but with a sunset clause ready for when the Assembly is up and running again—it could then take the matter in whatever direction it wanted to—so that the bare minimum is in place.
I hope that the Committee will look at amendment 9 carefully, because it would give us an opportunity to consider how to take the matter forward. I think that all Members are really very concerned and moved by the stories of women who have been affected by the current abortion laws in Northern Ireland, and I am sure that we all want to ensure that we do not carry on, year after year, with the issue of women’s reproductive rights and healthcare in Northern Ireland not being addressed and with their human rights not being upheld. I hope that the Committee will support amendment 9.

Huw Merriman: I rise to speak in favour of amendment 9, the details of which have just been explained by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson); of new clause 10, tabled by the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy); and of new clause 1, which stands in the name of the hon. Member for St Helens North (Conor McGinn). I will focus on abortion in Northern Ireland.
I have some sympathy with the point that this is a very narrowly defined Bill that is supposed to deliver certain eventualities, and that the amendments are widening in scope. Of course, the Clerk of Legislation, who is an absolute legend in this place, has decided that they are within scope. It is greatly frustrating that we have been having this conversation in this place for some time, because the Supreme Court has decreed that the law is incompatible with our obligations under treaty rights. When it comes to treaty rights, that is a matter for Parliament to correct; it is not a matter for Northern Ireland.
That opens up the point about why the Bill is being used in this regard. It is with regret, but with great frustration too, that we cannot seem to get Parliament to deliver by updating our laws to make them compliant with the Supreme Court’s judgment, because the Government have not moved.
I have great sympathy with the views held by hon. Members from Northern Ireland. I met representatives who were put in touch with me by the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson), and they made their case, with great dignity and respect, for why they do not want to see abortion rights changed. I think it is important for us to meet all sides of the divide. Equally, I spent time with Amnesty International in Belfast, meeting those who felt that their lives had been ruined by the current situation.
It feels wrong to me that one part of the United Kingdom can be left behind with a near total ban on abortion. The situation is even more perverse now that the Republic has changed its legal position on the matter. In 2018, as we have heard, 1,053 women had to travel outside Northern Ireland in order to exercise the rights that would be available to them elsewhere in the UK. That shows the absurdity of the situation, because the abortions still took place, but the extra inconvenience has to be suffered. I think that we need to change that.
I want to return to the words of Lady Hale in her Supreme Court judgment. She said:
“I agree, for the reasons given by Lord Kerr and Lord Mance, that in denying a lawful termination of her pregnancy in Northern Ireland to those women and girls in these situations who wish for it, the law is incompatible with their Convention rights.”
She then explained that Parliament—she was very clear that this was for Parliament—could do three things:
“First, it may share the court’s view and approve a ‘fast track’ remedial order under section 10 of the HRA”—
the Human Rights Act 1998;
“Second, it may share our view and pass an Act of Parliament to put things right… Third, it may do nothing”
and see the matter taken further, through to Strasbourg. More tellingly, for me—this is why I think we have it within our gift and should enact the provision—she said the following:
“It is at this point that the democratic will, as expressed through the elected representatives of the people, rules the day.”
The Bill is perhaps not the best vehicle, but the law requires updating. We have an opportunity now to give people their dignity and their human rights.

Emma Little Pengelly: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Huw Merriman: I will take one intervention, given that I have made so many myself.

Emma Little Pengelly: It is also the case, as we have articulated—we have received thousands of emails from across Northern Ireland—that the democratic will of the people of Northern Ireland does not support what is outlined in the amendment. The hon. Gentleman has highlighted an issue with the court case, but this amendment goes well beyond that.

Huw Merriman: I understand the hon. Lady’s point, because when I visited Northern Ireland I received a few choice emails from residents suggesting that I go back to where I came from. The reality is that this is the UK Parliament, and I believe that it is for this Parliament to take action. Even if I was wrong about that, for two years now the people of Northern Ireland have been unable to make those changes. We have conflicting polls—I could offer her one from Amnesty International. For two years there has not been the ability to legislate, so for how many more years are we to carry on, with people in Northern Ireland being without a vehicle for having their rights enforced?
I believe that is the fundamental point, because given that hon. Members argue, in relation to certain matters, that there should be no split down the Irish sea between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom, I find it slightly perverse that they think that is okay when it comes to fundamental human rights. That is why I believe very strongly that we must make a change.
I will end with this, because I know that there is always a tendency—

Nigel Dodds: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Huw Merriman: I said that I would take only one intervention, if the right hon. Gentleman does not mind.
I say this, particularly to Members on these Conservative Benches: there might be technical reasons why they could be persuaded by the argument that this is a devolved matter—although I think legally that is wrong—but if we want to change, then we cannot change by abstaining, and if we want to make the point that we believe in equality and in human rights for all UK citizens, then it takes bravery. Do not just wear a badge or a  T-shirt; walk through the Division Lobby and stand up for people whose rights have been abused for far too long.

Stewart McDonald: It was Lord Palmerston who said that the Schleswig-Holstein question had only ever been understood by three people: one had gone mad, one had died and one had forgotten what it was all about. Here, however, we are considering a set of political, constitutional, legal and moral issues that are hopefully of far less complexity than that diplomatic incident all those years ago. They are unquestionably complex issues. To many people outside this Chamber—and probably to some inside it—it is a straight yes or no, for example on new clause 1 and same-sex marriage. But we are legislators and must take into consideration all the complex constitutional, political and possibly economic—whatever it might be—pieces of the kaleidoscope before reaching an informed decision.
Of course, the West Lothian question, which presents itself in some guise for the Scottish National party in this debate, needs to be answered and explained. It is entirely correct that Members, particularly those who represent Northern Ireland constituencies, would expect an explanation for that from us. There has been an historic self-denying ordinance on the Scottish National party not to participate in matters, such as this, that are outwith the scope of the devolved settlement in Scotland. However, we made it clear four years ago, not long after the larger arrival of my colleagues here, that there may be times when we decide to do so. We said in the election campaigns of 2015 and 2017 that we would do so where we deemed it to be appropriate, and I believe that this is one such occasion.
We talk a lot in this place at the moment about hard borders. There is currently a hard border on civil rights and equal rights for LGBT people, and it runs down the Irish sea. It is notable that Scotland is the only part of the United Kingdom where a same-sex union in Northern Ireland can be converted into a full marriage. I beseech the Government to amend their legislation to allow for that to happen in England and Wales.
I say to members of the Democratic Unionist party—I single out the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson), who is taking his seat and was frothing at the mouth when we heard from Members who have genuinely held positions in relation to this problem; doubtless he does as well—that we have a unique set of circumstances. I do not like this place interfering in devolved Administrations and institutions perhaps any more than he does, but there is no point in the Scottish National party trying to out-Sinn Féin Sinn Féin on these matters, as they have said it would be entirely appropriate. I take no pleasure or joy in having to do this—I wish it could be settled in the Northern Ireland Assembly. Sinn Féin are right that the Assembly is the proper place to take that decision, but we are where we are. I could not go back to my constituency, and I could not look someone from Northern Ireland who wants this change in the eye ever again if I abstained or did not seek to advance the cause of equality, which I can enjoy, and which every Member of this House can enjoy, but which they cannot.
I will not accept any accusations of not being consistent. When the Democratic Unionist party blocked equal marriage, I argued for it consistently. In the gruesome  history of the DUP’s—[Interruption.] They might laugh, but during the party’s gruesome history of anti-LGBT campaigning—and no, I will not calm down—I was consistent in standing up for equal rights, as were many other Members who have spoken in this debate. This is not simple—it is not black and white—but we face a set of unprecedented political circumstances in Northern Ireland. I do not enjoy them any more than anyone else, but voting for the Scottish National party to take part is entirely right and consistent, and I look forward to voting for new clause 1 when the Division is called.

Vicky Ford: As Members of Parliament, we often meet people who have suffered deep trauma and have been through challenging times, but the evidence that I heard when I served on the Women and Equalities Committee, which was looking at the issue of abortion in Northern Ireland, was one of the most harrowing experiences that I have had in over a decade of being an elected politician. I speak as someone who firmly believes in a woman’s right to choose, but I also believe strongly, in sensitive matters such as abortion, that local people should be able to make their own decisions, and not have views imposed on them by people in another area.
I was born and raised in County Tyrone, and I know how sensitive issues on abortion and devolution are in Northern Ireland. During the Select Committee inquiry we heard from over 700 people, who had their own individual stories to tell about how the law and medical care in Northern Ireland affected them. I travelled to Northern Ireland three times. We held a number of public sessions, and also many sessions in private. The Select Committee report was agreed unanimously by all the Members who had taken part in those evidence sessions in Northern Ireland. The two Members who signed the minority report had not been to Northern Ireland to hear evidence.
Some cases were deeply traumatic. Sarah Ewart, who has been mentioned, was a young mum, newly wed, who was firmly opposed to abortion. At her 20-week scan, she was told that her baby had anencephaly, which means that the baby’s head is not developing—there is no skull or brain—and the baby will not be born alive. Sarah spoke to her grandmother, who told her how having to give birth to a child with a similar condition meant she had nearly lost her own life. Sarah told us how, when she received the diagnosis, backs were turned. The doctors, midwives and nurses felt that they could not give advice, because they had been told that if they gave advice to a woman in those circumstances they risked being sent to jail for life. Sarah went to England to have her abortion.
We heard from another woman who was carrying a baby that she knew would not survive birth, and who was too sick as a mother to travel. She ended up having to carry her baby in her womb until the baby died, and then deliver a dead baby. We also heard from a woman who had been diagnosed when living in London as carrying a child who was going to die, and was wrapped around with love and support, and enabled to deliver the baby early on and terminate the pregnancy. When she moved back to Northern Ireland in similar circumstances, she did not receive that care.
To be balanced, we also heard from a mother who was told that her baby was almost certainly due to die. She decided not to have an abortion, and the baby is now a healthy teenager. Most worrying for me was the  evidence I heard from the chief medical officer, who believed that under the current regime, doctors, nurses and midwives in Northern Ireland could not carry out their duty of care obligations to women, especially women whose babies are going to die, so those mums’ lives were being put at risk.
The UK Supreme Court has identified a breach of human rights in cases of fatal foetal abnormality, rape and incest. The UN committee has found grave and systemic breaches of women’s rights in the same areas. Britain is a country that upholds human rights across the world. We cannot turn a blind eye to what is happening in our own country. There is no question but that the situation must be changed—the question is how. The Select Committee report contains a number of recommendations. The law on fatal foetal abnormalities needs to be changed. Women’s lives should not be endangered—women should be loved and cared for at that time. The situation for healthcare professionals needs to be changed, so that that chilling effect no longer occurs. We need to provide more support for those who find themselves pregnant as a result of rape and incest, and we must address those human rights concerns.
The new clause tabled by the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) goes much further. It suggests that we remove sections 58 and 59 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861, which would fundamentally change abortion law in England as well as in Northern Ireland. In England, we have the 1967 Act, which tells us how abortion can be done lawfully, but what happens if there is an unlawful abortion? We know that the vast majority of abortions today are not surgical procedures; they are medical procedures, such as taking a pill. What happens if I was pregnant and my partner gave me that pill? How do we make sure that we can still prosecute an unlawful abortion if we have decriminalised it? I want to ensure that, before we change the rules or the law in England, we have gone through these circumstances and made sure our regime is robust. Before we decide to remove those sections, we need to make sure that our law throughout the whole UK is robust. I think that needs detailed consideration and does not just get done on a Tuesday afternoon in Westminster on the back of one Back Bencher’s amendments.
Finally, the lack of a devolved Assembly in Northern Ireland is having many really serious consequences. We have heard Members talk about people having to wait for their cancer care. I have heard about delays to education spending and about delays to infrastructure projects. I have heard about the uncertainty that that gives to people’s lives and people’s businesses, and the impact it is having on the economy. We need the devolved Assembly and we need these laws to go through, but we do not need the Back-Bench amendments attached to them. For that reason, I will vote in the same manner as the Chair of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee this afternoon.

Ian Paisley Jnr: Thank you, Dame Rosie, for giving me the opportunity to speak during the Committee stage of this important Bill.
This Bill is called the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation) Bill, yet the debate has been pretty thin on how an Executive could be formed again in Northern Ireland. In fact, we have had a debate about every other  issue under the sun except what we are supposed to be debating. That is no reflection, of course, on the Chair; it is because of the amendments that have been tabled to try to frustrate the very important issue of how we form an Executive in Northern Ireland.
People give us lip service. They tell us, “We want to have an Executive in Northern Ireland. We want the Executive brought back.” Here is a Bill that would let us do that, give impetus to those negotiators and give a fair wind to what is going on in Belfast and in Stormont at this particular time but, instead of being an encourager or facilitator of those talks, this House—during the debate today and yesterday—has actually become a frustrator of those talks. It wishes to frustrate them for the obvious reason that it wants to debate other issues that could interfere and affect the strange but important counterbalance required between the parties to encourage them to get in to the talks, to make progress and to ensure they are not put off by what is happening outside the Assembly.

Emma Little Pengelly: It is fair to say that we have entered into the substance of some of these issues here today, and everybody is clear that the DUP and others in the House have strong views on the substance of a number of those issues. However, it is also clear that what we are asking people to do is to vote on the process—an inadequate process. Fundamental change by way of Back-Bench amendments is not the way to do this. It does not facilitate scrutiny and it will impact on the talks process. We can revisit this appropriately in October, if need be.

Ian Paisley Jnr: My hon. Friend makes an appropriate point. Either we decide to direct-rule all powers in relation to Northern Ireland and deal with the issues honestly, openly and transparently here, or else we give a fair wind to the Assembly, allow it to get up and running, and allow it to be responsible for the affairs it is supposed to be responsible for. Having a foot in both camps, and saying we might legislate on these issues and we may have an impact on those issues, sometimes gives an advantage to one party in Northern Ireland over the other. That is where the process today, being driven by Back Benchers, on some of the amendments is totally disgraceful and wrong. I know—I have said this as clearly as I possibly can—that that is not the intention of many Members and that they all want to see stability back in Northern Ireland, but that is the effect of what they are doing. The impact of what they are doing will have that counterbalance on the situation in Northern Ireland.
A year or so ago, the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee published a report, “Devolution and democracy in Northern Ireland”, on dealing with the democratic deficit, which listed 67 issues that were in deficit and required to be addressed. Not one of those issues has been the subject of a Back-Bench amendment today—not one of them—yet that is the list; that is the authorised version list of what needs to be put in place to address the democratic deficit. But oh, no: we have other subject matters, which parties here know are part and parcel of the ongoing debate in Northern Ireland and of the ongoing negotiation in Northern Ireland, and they could hold other parties to ransom if they are dealt with here in advance of the  outcome of the talks process in Northern Ireland. I think parties should waken up and recognise that they should be facilitating that process, not frustrating it.

Sylvia Hermon: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Ian Paisley Jnr: I really do not have time. The hon. Member is a cousin of mine. She knows that I always want to give way, but now I do not have time. Other Members wish to speak.

Sylvia Hermon: rose—

Ian Paisley Jnr: I really cannot.

Sylvia Hermon: The hon. Gentleman—

Ian Paisley Jnr: I really cannot. I always give way to you, and I really cannot.

Sylvia Hermon: I think the hon. Gentleman needs to—

Ian Paisley Jnr: Please.
Unfortunately, the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) is not here at the moment but the issue of abortion has been made the centrepiece of this debate. It is very important that we ask Members who support this to think about the framework that would be put in place, or would not be in place, as a result of that amendment if it is supported. There would be no framework for abortion in Northern Ireland. Think of the consequences of that.
No matter what people’s position is—I have a very clear position on abortion; other Members have taken the opposite view and they are entitled to that point of view, as I am entitled to my point of view—the fact and the impact of the matter would be that we would have unregulated abortions taking place in Northern Ireland. They would be so unregulated that we would have no idea of the scope of those abortions. Would the limit start at 12 weeks, as is proposed in the Republic of Ireland? Will it go up to 28 weeks? Will it go to full-term abortion? There is no framework. No one here proposing this could give us an answer on that point because they do not have an answer. The measure would just open the door to unregulated abortion.
Where would abortions take place in Northern Ireland? People might say, “Oh, we can do it the way we do it in—.” Well, I am sorry; there is no regulatory framework to allow it to happen. Who would carry out those abortions? Who would take part in them? These matters need to be properly scrutinised, regulated and legislated for, if that is the way Parliament would choose to go. That is why there has been a convention to leave those matters to the devolved Assemblies—since 1921. This has not just been the case since the 1990s; it has been the case since 1921, because it is at the local level that these matters can be properly regulated.
There would be no regulatory framework for sex selection. There would be no regulatory framework for deciding on the abortion of a living soul that would have a disability—none whatever. Those matters need to be properly regulated for.
Hon. Members have made the point that it is unlawful in Northern Ireland to do certain things that are legal here. I must say, Dame Rosie, we have got to nail that. If it is a criminal offence to facilitate and to encourage an  abortion illegally—outside of the law—in Northern Ireland, that same law applies in the rest of GB. One cannot facilitate or encourage illegal abortion anywhere in the UK, whether one is in Walthamstow or in any other part of the United Kingdom, including Northern Ireland. It should not be put about that there are different liberties on this issue; there are not. There are regulations that would apply in England, but none of them would apply in Northern Ireland under this measure. Even if Members take a different view from me on the principle point, they should think long and hard before they support this, because of the impact that it would have.
Let me read into the record of the House what the Supreme Court judgment in R (A and B) v. Secretary of State for Health said, as recently as 2017. It was confirmed that there is no right to abortion in any international treaties:
“The conventions and the covenant to which the UK is a party carefully stop short of calling upon national authorities to make abortion services generally available. Some of the committees go further down that path. But, as a matter of international law, the authority of their recommendations is slight”,
yet we are being told today that no, that is not the case. That is the law; that is what the international treaties say. How can Members tell us that they are campaigning on a great rights issue? There is no right under the international treaties to terminate an unborn life. That is the fact of the matter, and we must make sure that that right—the right to life—is upheld.
Other Members have indicated that they wish to speak for the rights of women. The biggest survey done on this matter in the past year, under ComRes, has shown that 66% of women in Northern Ireland, if they want to see changes to abortion laws, want those changes to be done exclusively in the Northern Ireland Assembly, which will take cognisance of the specific and peculiar needs that the Province has. That is what the surveys show. They do not indicate that they want this House to legislate for it in a day, or in a hop, skip, jump and a prayer manner that would lead to unregulated abortions.
It is important that we address one matter that was brought before the House last night. The Scottish National party made a principled case here to support what it has always done—their words, “a principled case”. It said that it would ensure that it would stand away from interfering in a devolved matter. It is important that we look at what was said on the record, at column 75. The SNP said that it does not vote on matters of devolution and that it sticks to that principle. If that was the principle, it is very disappointing that, today, tactically, the SNP has decided to change it. It is entitled, of course, to make that change, but it is not right to try to suggest that it is all the DUP’s fault, when we know that the leaks, which are worse than those coming out of Washington, indicate splits in the ranks of the SNP and that it has more problems internally on this matter and it is trying to use the cover of this matter to take away from its own splits.

Nigel Evans: I have been an MP for 27 years and I was here for all the devolution legislation. I sat on the Opposition Benches and I was opposed to devolution, but I lost. I lost the referendum and I lost the argument. Therefore, I cannot see how anybody who believes in devolution, simply because they do not like the decisions that the devolved Administrations are taking, could be against it.

Ian Paisley Jnr: Thank you, Dame Rosie, for allowing us to make these points. I hope that we will be able to continue this debate and that we see the formation of an Executive in Northern Ireland. That is what we should really be about. I am happy at any point to debate any of those other 67 subjects, but I fear that this Chamber will echo to the one or two normal voices who come for Northern Ireland affairs. Unfortunately, the Bill has today become a Trojan horse for other matters that really should not have been allowed to come on to the agenda.

Paul Masterton: Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak, Dame Rosie. I had intended to speak last night on Second Reading, but my flight was delayed so I was not able to do so. I did, however, watch a large chunk of it on the television—until “Love Island” started anyway—and I was particularly struck by two excellent speeches from the hon. Members for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) and for Belfast South (Emma Little Pengelly), who represent my old stomping grounds. I would like to touch on a couple of points that they made last night.
I often find these debates very telling in terms of the number of people, who for years have shown no interest in Northern Ireland and absolutely no interest in devolution, suddenly appearing as if they were the new-found single most important thing to their being. It is a bit frustrating and why I thought, as a Scottish Conservative who believes in and grew up under devolution and is a representative of one of the devolved nations, I would throw in my two cents.
I think we need to start with the pretty fundamental point that devolution in Northern Ireland does not exist at the moment. It has not existed for two years. There is no Executive and there is no Assembly. Arlene Foster is the former First Minister, and she is the First Minister in waiting of an institution that right now does not exist.

Jeffrey M. Donaldson: It is not true to say that devolution does not exist in Northern Ireland. There are 11 district councils in Northern Ireland, with extensive powers given to them by this Parliament, which exercise power in my constituency and take very important decisions that affect the people I represent. So please let us not suggest that there is no form of devolution in Northern Ireland. Of course we would love to have our Executive and Assembly in addition to that, but local government is a devolved matter in Northern Ireland and continues to function very effectively as a devolved government.

Paul Masterton: I take the right hon. Gentleman’s point. I think he knows what I mean about that layer of government, but having benefited from the excellent services of Belfast City Council in my time in Northern Ireland I will uphold his comments about the quality of local governance.
We also have Members of the Legislative Assembly, who are the Members of no such Assembly. Some of them continue to do very good work in their communities but a large number do very little for the salary they are paid. We have to have this debate in the context in which it is held. That is why, as sorry as I feel for the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands) being slightly undermined by his party’s  switch in position overnight, I am pleased that the SNP has at least accepted the principle of the sovereignty of the Westminster Parliament. That is important, because this is the UK Parliament and, as Members of Parliament, it is our responsibility to represent and act in the best interests of all of the United Kingdom’s citizens.
I agree with the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) that it is a shame that this Bill has been hijacked. That was always going to happen. We must accept that the reason it has been hijacked is that, in this place, we have allowed this process to stumble on from six months to six months. I like the Secretary of State; she has been given a complete hospital pass in this role and she is doing the best she can. But every once in a while she has to say that the talks are going well and there could be progress. We reach a deadline, set another one and limp on, but eventually we will have to make a difficult call about how much longer we are prepared to accept and put up with that.
I come at the matter as a Scottish Member of Parliament. The system is different and the likelihood of Holyrood collapsing in this way is next to nil but, if it did, I would be so angry at every person in this place—whether I was an MP or not—for allowing that to happen. Remarks have been made about special needs education and the lack of legislation for free childcare. As the father of a five-year-old daughter who will start school in August and a three-year-old son who is going to start nursery, I would be absolutely furious if devolution in Scotland failed and led to the collapse of those services, and time and again MPs in my Parliament have washed their hands of the matter, saying, “This is too difficult. We don’t want to touch this for political reasons.”

Gregory Campbell: I share the hon. Gentleman’s frustration. Does he agree that, if people in Scotland were then told, “There is a hiatus at the moment, but we, the Westminster Parliament, are going to single out one or two issues, which we know are divisive, and deal with them, but we will not deal with the other issues,” there would be extreme frustration and anger?

Paul Masterton: I would be incredibly frustrated by that. I will come on to the point about cherry-picking, which the hon. Member for Belfast East made last night. I do not pretend to be an expert on Northern Ireland just because I lived there for a bit and I still have friends there, but my strong instinct is that the people of Northern Ireland are not convinced that devolution is coming back any time soon, and that they do not particularly care who makes the decisions, as long as the decisions are made.
We heard the list of 67 issues from the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee report. I am frustrated with myself because, had I properly thought about this, there might have been good reason to table 67 discrete amendments—keyhole surgery amendments—to give Ministers incredibly limited powers, strictly for the purposes of doing certain things, such as implementing some of the strategies that have been gathering dust and making some changes to legislation. People in Northern Ireland want and need those changes now, but they do not particularly care who enacts them.
The point about cherry-picking is right. These are the wrong issues to use as test cases. What we are doing is messy, divisive and emotive but, by the same token, I do not think it is wrong to do it. Therefore, I will support new clause 1 and amendment 9. I think that they have been neatly and carefully drafted, to continue, as far as possible, the optimism that there will be a restored Executive and Assembly. If there is, those provisions will fall away. I will not support new clause 10 because—as my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford) and others set out—it goes too far in making underlying changes to legislation.
I will sit down and shut up now. I will just add that I find the whole situation in Northern Ireland completely unconscionable, but not because I am a dyed-in-the-wool unionist, who bizarrely wants to roll back devolution—I am not. We have to accept that this is the United Kingdom’s sovereign Parliament. Allowing Northern Ireland to effectively wither on the vine only serves the interests of Sinn Féin. Sinn Féin is the blockage to getting the Assembly up and running. I can see no evidence that that situation will change, certainly not in the next few months. Unless we change the underlying structure of how the Executive and Assembly are formed, it will be open to Sinn Féin to collapse them at any point in the future. At one point or another, we in this place must say that we will stand up in the interests of the people of Northern Ireland, whichever side of the community they are from, and, in certain discrete measures, neatly and tightly drafted, introduce the effective change that they need and are crying out for.
We shall be back here in six months’ time, and I hope that a large number of those 67 issues will be up for consideration. I also hope—this is directed at the Government Front Bench—that we will deal with the legislation properly and will not try to rush it through in two days, which has led to all the issues of scrutiny that have been raised by Opposition Members.
I think that this is a bit of a dog’s breakfast, but we are where we are, and I shall be supporting a couple of the amendments today. Let us hope that my negativity and pessimism are misplaced and that by the end of October we will have a brand-new shiny Executive, but I suspect that I will not be holding my breath.

Roberta Blackman-Woods: I rise to support new clause 1, along with amendment 9, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson), and new clauses 10, 11 and 12, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy).
The reality facing women in Northern Ireland is that, under current legislation, they can be sent to prison for life for ending a pregnancy. Abortion is not available to women in Northern Ireland in cases of fatal foetal abnormality, rape or incest. That is not a situation that we would tolerate for any of our own constituents, and we should not be tolerating it for UK citizens in Northern Ireland. The UK Supreme Court takes the same view, and has stated that the lack of access to abortion for women in Northern Ireland is a breach of their human rights.
I think it very unfortunate that the right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) and the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) sought to undermine Committees of the United Nations and CEDAW to try  to make points that should not be made in the context of this very important issue. I think that that was unacceptable, and that all of us in the Chamber should be upholding the UN’s findings and supporting all the reports and recommendations from CEDAW.
It is not even as if the legislation in Northern Ireland actually prevents women from having abortions. It prevents some women from having abortions—those who, for a variety of reasons, such as poverty or a set of family circumstances, are not able to travel to England. That is an appalling situation for women in Northern Ireland, and we must do something about it.
I thank all those who have campaigned for many decades in Northern Ireland to change the law relating to abortion. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for Kingston upon Hull North and for Walthamstow, who have done so much in continuing to raise the issue in Parliament and with the Women and Equalities Committee. I suspect, however, that I am the only Member in the Chamber to have campaigned against the abortion laws in Northern Ireland for decades. I began campaigning with a group of women for the Abortion Act 1967 to be applied to Northern Ireland. We thought, even back then, that it was important for women throughout the UK to have the same access to abortion, wherever they lived, and for their human rights—although I doubt that was the language we used at the time—to be upheld uniformly.

Diana R. Johnson: I commend my hon. Friend on her perseverance over all these years of campaigning for this. Hopefully, we will see some change shortly, but it is important to recognise that there have been decades of campaigning by so many strong, brave women and men.

Roberta Blackman-Woods: I thank my hon. Friend for those comments.
I want to address some of the comments made by Members in the Chamber, particularly those representing Northern Ireland constituencies. They will know that I do not often speak on Northern Ireland matters because I respect the fact that they are the elected representatives for the area. Nevertheless, as we have seen demonstrated today, the issues we are discussing are about upholding human rights right across the UK.
I, too, honestly wish that the issue of abortion rights and extending them to Northern Ireland was being addressed by an enlightened Assembly in Northern Ireland, but unfortunately, as we all know, the Assembly is not sitting and is not likely to sit for some time, so we have a decision to make this afternoon: do we sit on these Benches, twiddle our thumbs and think that maybe sometime in the next three, five or 10 years we will get around to making a decision about abortion and what is happening to women in Northern Ireland? I hope we do not make that decision.
We all assume that women in Northern Ireland are able to travel to England to secure an abortion, but of course, all woman cannot, so we still have women in Northern Ireland accessing backstreet abortions. It is hard to believe that this is happening in our country in this day and age.
I did not know decades ago that I was going to be in a situation one day where I could do something to secure better access to safe abortion services for women in Northern Ireland, but I am in that position, and all of  us in this Chamber are in that position today. I hope that we will set aside the arguments about devolution, important though they are, because at the moment we cannot get a solution to this problem through the devolved Assembly. What we have to do instead is wake up to the opportunity that we all have to stop women in Northern Ireland having to travel to England for an abortion and to enable them to access safe abortion services the way any other woman can in the UK. It is also wrong to say that this will open the floodgates to unregulated abortion; we heard from my hon. Friends the Members for Kingston upon Hull North and for Walthamstow about the frameworks that have been set out to deliver regulated abortion services in Northern Ireland.
This is not an issue that has been delayed for two-plus years while the Assembly has not been sitting; it has been an issue for four decades, if not longer, and we must act now to protect the women in Northern Ireland.

Ged Killen: I rise to support new clauses 9, 10, 11 and 12 and to speak in favour of new clause 1 on the issue of same sex-marriage. I begin by placing on record my thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for St Helens North (Conor McGinn), who really is the very best example of an LGBT ally; I will come on to talk more about that in a moment. He is no longer in his place, but I am sure he will be back shortly.
Quite frankly, this issue has gone on long enough. We know the arguments. The Northern Ireland Assembly has already voted in favour of same-sex marriage, and that enjoys overwhelming public support. The historical anti-LGBT legislation in Northern Ireland came from this place, and the major advances on LGBT rights in Northern Ireland have happened when this place has legislated. We are not trampling over devolution, because there is no devolved government, and new clause 1 would allow until October for Stormont to get up and running again before these changes took effect. It would be so much more preferable for LGBT people in Northern Ireland to be able to look upon their Government in Belfast with pride as the Assembly finally righted this wrong and delivered equality, but if it is not able to do that, people in Northern Ireland should rightly be looking at their other Government here in London to do what is necessary.
As my hon. Friend the Member for St Helens North mentioned, this is personal for me. I am married to an Irishman and our marriage is not recognised where he is from. We can get on a plane in Glasgow as married men and arrive in Belfast as civil partners, despite never having left the UK, so it has been a great source of frustration and, at times, bemusement to me that, for the last two years, I have had to contend with the DUP talking about how much it does not want any regulatory divergence between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK. But even if I was not married to a man from Northern Ireland, I would see it as my duty to stand side by side with LGBT people, no matter where they lived, and it just so happens that they live in the same country as me. The hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands) could not take my intervention last night, but I am genuinely pleased that the SNP has decided to allow a free vote on this issue, because being an LGBT ally means action.
On that point, I want to mention the Government, because I do not think it is good enough for Ministers to stand at the Dispatch Box and offer warm words about equality and call themselves allies. No one is in any doubt that this Government are perfectly legally entitled to introduce same-sex marriage in Northern Ireland; they are just refusing to do so. On the issue of LGBT rights, I am afraid that the Government and the Northern Ireland Office are badly letting people down in Northern Ireland. Recently, I asked the Secretary of State what her Department was doing and, in particular, why it had spent only £318 in recent years on advancing LGBT rights. She responded by telling me that it was
“not the role of the Northern Ireland Office, nor the Government, to develop a framework or strategy to advance the rights of LGBT people in Northern Ireland.”
Page 3 of the Government’s LGBT action plan says:
“This ‘LGBT Action Plan’ explains how we will advance the rights of LGBT people both at home and abroad, and improve the way that public services work for them.”
It actually says “at home and abroad”. There is an entire section on the UK’s international obligations on this issue. We know that £5.6 million has been made available for programmes to be delivered through civil society organisations to advance the legal equality and rights of all Commonwealth citizens, regardless of gender, sex, sexual orientation or gender identity, yet just £318 has been spent on Northern Ireland and we have a Secretary of State who thinks that LGBT equality in that part of the world is nothing to do with her.
Over the weekend, we had a fantastic celebration of Pride in London. We had the Government’s GREAT Britain campaign tweeting out a reminder that in more than 20 countries where gay marriage is not legal, British embassies and consulates perform marriages for same-sex couples where one partner, or both partners, is a British national. What about Northern Ireland? What a kick in the teeth that is for people in Northern Ireland: just a friendly reminder on Pride weekend in London that people in other countries can get married in British consulates, but they cannot. These are not the actions of an ally.
This Government have within their gift the power to act. When they refuse to do so, they cease to be an ally and become an obstacle. Obstacles are something that we are all well used to in the LGBT community. They have included, “We can’t decriminalise sex between two men because it is perverse and sinful,” as well as, “We have to ban the promotion of homosexuality in schools; otherwise, people will think they have an inalienable right to be gay,” and, “We can’t have civil partnerships because that might lead to marriage, and we can’t have marriage because everybody knows that marriage is between a man and a woman.” In that context, “We can’t have marriage because of devolution,” is a pathetic excuse. People in Northern Ireland are not asking this Government for action; they are demanding it. This is their Government too. It is 50 years since LGBT people stopped waiting patiently for things to change and started fighting back. We are not going to start waiting patiently now.

Jim Shannon: It will come as no surprise that I cannot support these amendments. I say that with respect to all those who have spoken or will  speak afterwards. I ask hon. and right hon. Members to respect my point of view, which might be very different from the views of others in this Committee. The reason is twofold. First, I say unequivocally that, in every word I utter, I do not judge how anyone chooses to live their life. I am a man of faith, as others will know. I believe God almighty will judge every one of us in this Committee, and I will have enough trouble explaining what I have done, never mind anybody else.
I believe the Bible is the inspired word of God, and I do not believe it can or should be altered. I believe what it says is true, and many of my constituents feel and think the same. They have spoken to me about it, and I have been contacted by many decent people who question the need to change the definition of marriage when civil partnerships provide more protection than is available for common law marriages. These people—my constituents, myself and others—are not homophobic and do not hate others. They treasure the word of God and have a right to their opinion that there is no legal reason or moral obligation to change the definition.
We have heard from the right hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert), and I sat on the Public Bill Committee that considered the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013. Four members of that Committee—three Conservatives and me—opposed the Bill, and we secured a Government amendment that ensured the Northern Ireland Assembly would make a decision on this matter. The amendment was unanimously supported by all parties—Labour, Conservatives and Liberal Democrats, everyone supported it. That is the way it happened.
My right hon. Friend the Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson), as a Finance Minister in the Northern Ireland Assembly, made sure the proposal went through, so why is a change needed? This is a devolved matter and there is little doubt that, if Sinn Féin ever decide to act democratically and allow the Assembly to reconvene to discuss this redefinition, it would be one of the first items on the agenda. The devolved Assembly is the place for this decision.
It is simply inappropriate for this place to step in and help out with human rights when the rights to life and to education are threatened and in desperate straits. Members either believe in devolution or they do not. They either interfere in all things or they do not. It is not right to do this in this way.
It is right for the Secretary of State to introduce legislation to compel Assembly Members to take their seats and to break the Stormont Sinn Féin stalemate. It is right to force the institution to take its place and do its job, part of which is to discuss this matter. It is not right to take isolated decisions. I respect and work hard for every constituent, regardless of their age, race, gender, sexual orientation or faith, but I will not support new clause 1.
I cannot and will not support new clauses 10 to 12 on abortion. Like everyone else in this place, I am entitled to my firm opinion and, on behalf of my constituents, I make that very clear. I have listened to others with respect, and I believe that both lives matter. I have heard much about a woman’s right over her body, but I have not heard very much about the right of the little life within. The right of the unborn human offspring, from approximately the second week to the eighth week after  fertilisation, and the sanctity of life are very important to me and my constituents. I want to put exactly how I feel on the record today.

Gregory Campbell: I assure my hon. Friend that many people in Northern Ireland will be glad to hear him refer to that, because very deep, profound and empathetic views have been expressed. That should be the case in such debates, but, all too often, we do not hear the case, to which he alludes, of the many millions of unborn children.

Jim Shannon: I thank my hon. Friend for what he says, which is exactly how I and many others feel. I am not afraid to use the term “baby”. I believe it is a life that has rights. Many Members have referenced the rights of the woman, and I believe in those rights, but not at the expense of another life.
As a father and a grandfather, my heart aches at the thought that anything would happen to any of my granddaughters that would foster thoughts of their having to consider this as an option. However, I would point out that there were abortions carried out in Northern Ireland last year; 12 pregnancies were terminated in NHS hospitals in Northern Ireland in 2017-18, which was one fewer than in the previous year. These take place when the woman’s life is at risk or there is a permanent or serious risk to her mental or physical health. There are laws in place in Northern Ireland that allow for necessary abortions currently—they work and they are used—but what we do not have is abortion on demand, which is what is being called for today in this place. I cannot and will not accept that.

Eddie Hughes: I seem to recall a campaign in Northern Ireland suggesting that 100,000 people were alive because the law on abortion in Northern Ireland had not been changed. Will the hon. Gentleman reflect on that?

Jim Shannon: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, and what he says is true—it is a fact. Those figures have not been refuted. Indeed, they have been endorsed. I thank him for reminding the House clearly of the 100,000 lives saved because of not having abortion on demand in Northern Ireland.
Last year, an abortion was carried out every two and a half minutes in England and Wales—that is of every hour, of every day of the week, with no holiday and no break. Was that the intention of the Abortion Act 1967? No, it was not, but it was the result. I heard the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) say that she is speaking for women from Northern Ireland as no one is speaking for them. I seek gently to remind her that I am here, speaking on behalf of my constituents.
As of Monday evening, my office had received 443 emails on this issue, the majority of which were from women in my constituency, and 412 of the emails opposed any attempt by this place to change abortion laws in Northern Ireland through external interference, with some even labelling this as an attack on devolution and democracy. Just 31 asked me to support these amendments. That means that 92.5% of my constituents—the people I am paid to represent in this House—have asked me not to accede to this amendment. Their reasons replicate mine: some are opposed to what brings about abortion on  demand, and some are incensed that Members of this House will not “interfere” to bring about a resolution on urgent health and education matters, but will step in over our heads on a matter that was one of the last to be discussed at Stormont and to be voted against.
Members of this House cannot have it both ways to boost their own profile. Clearly, I speak for the majority of my constituents—I am happy to say that—and indeed for the 60% of those in national polls who would not be in favour of abortion on demand. I hope that I have spoken with gentleness and concern but am yet clear. The people of Strangford have been clear to me and we must also be clear: what is being asked here is not the desire of the people.
I end where I started, ever conscious of the time that you have allowed me, Dame Rosie, by saying that both lives matter and both rights must be upheld. This proposal protects neither, so I will not support new clauses 1, 10, 11 or 12. They do not represent the viewpoints of the majority of people in Northern Ireland.

Owen Smith: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who spoke, as he always does, with sincerity, conviction and gentleness. I will respect his request that we are respectful of the views of others in this place, even when we do not agree with them. I also respect the views of right hon. and hon. Members from Northern Ireland who today have expressed their frustration that we are not debating what I suppose many in Northern Ireland would feel is the primary political issue of the day: the restoration of the Executive and the political process that is ongoing there. I feel, as he doubtless does, that we spend too little time in this place debating issues that affect people in Northern Ireland. Arguably, we are becoming strangers in this place to many of the issues that affect people in Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland, as this place becomes a rather more English-centred Parliament, often by accident.
I do not believe, however, that the clauses that have been brought forward today are an attempt to hijack this debate. They are in some respects—new clause 1 and amendments 9 and 5, and the issues they pertain to—a reflection of the fact that, as Ron Davies, a former denizen of this place observed, devolution is “a process” and “not an event”. As someone who served the most recent Labour Government as an adviser in both Wales and Northern Ireland and who as a parliamentarian has served as shadow Secretary of State for Wales and for Northern Ireland, I think our attitudes to devolution are changing. In some respects, although we cannot have a hierarchy of rights, this debate is about the sense that some rights must be seen as universal and must, indeed, supersede the right to devolution. Those rights are, in particular, the rights we are talking about today: reproductive rights for women and the right for the LGBT people of Northern Ireland to be treated equally to their brothers and sisters throughout the rest of the UK.

Paul Girvan: On what trumps what and what is more important, issues with cross-party support that the Northern Ireland Assembly should bring forward to the Northern Ireland Executive have already been identified, and they include the institutional abuse scandal. What gives Members the right to trump  those sorts of issues? Let us be honest: the passing of certain legislation here puts people’s lives at risk. I believe that the life of the unborn is a life. It is not a foetus; it is a life. There is the potential that legislation will pass and create a problem for the future.

Owen Smith: Let me agree with the hon. Gentleman partly. As I shall talk about in a moment, I do believe that this place should legislate on the late Sir Anthony Hart’s recommendations on historic abuse. I am loth to suggest that there is a hierarchy of rights, but there are certain inalienable universal human rights that should be observed and afforded to people in every part of the world, including Northern Ireland. We are increasingly mindful of the fact that we in this place cannot allow ourselves to be hamstrung by the fact of devolution when it comes to the failure to see those rights observed for and afforded to women and the LGBT community in Northern Ireland. That is why this place, with lots of reluctance on the part of some Members, such as me, who are Unionists but who also believe fundamentally in devolution, is coming to the view that there should now be not just reports but legislation in this place to put in place those rights for Northern Ireland.
I support new clause 1, which was spoken to excellently and eloquently by my hon. Friend the Member for St Helens North (Conor McGinn), who has been a brilliant campaigner on the issue in recent years, and I also support the excellent work undertaken by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) and, indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) in respect of women’s reproductive rights in Northern Ireland. However, I wish to concentrate on two other issues that have not been spoken about much today but that are addressed in the series of new clauses and amendments: first, the pension for victims of the troubles in Northern Ireland; and secondly, the victims of the historical sexual abuse in care homes in Northern Ireland, which the hon. Member for South Antrim (Paul Girvan) mentioned a moment ago. When I was the shadow Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, I spoke from the Front Bench on these issues and devoted a lot of my time to them, and I shall simply repeat what I said from the Front Bench about what I think we ought to do.
Let me illustrate and humanise the issue of a pension for severely physically disabled victims of the troubles—those people in Northern Ireland who were injured through no fault of their own, of whom there are around 500—by talking a little about the case of a man I have met on many occasions and whom I greatly admire: Peter Heathwood. In 1979, Peter was in his flat in Belfast when loyalist gunmen broke in, dragged his wife down the hall by her hair, and shot Peter twice, paralysing him for life. The configuration of the building in which they lived meant that when the ambulance men arrived, they could not put Peter’s damaged, broken body on to a stretcher, so he was put into a body bag. He was carried down the steps of his flat in the body bag. His father, Herbert, arrived at the scene thinking that his son, Peter, had died, and collapsed of a heart attack and died. Peter has been paralysed and in a wheelchair since 1979, unable to work, and surviving on benefits. He is a perfect, awful and tragic illustration of the reality of the lives of some 500 members of our  community, our country, in Northern Ireland who were injured during the troubles. He is a perfect illustration of why this Government—any Government in Northern Ireland or in this place—need to act with compassion and speed to help those people and to offer them a victim’s pension, as has been talked about for so long, to give them the extra support that they need.
Many right hon. and hon. Members, particularly from the DUP, quite rightly point to the difficulty that is at the heart of the reason why this has not been done. It is that, among that 500, there are perhaps 10 people who were injured by their own hand, who, in the course of commissioning acts of terrorism, blew themselves up or shot themselves. The consideration, as always, has quite rightly been that it would be invidious if those people, having tried to perpetrate violence against the state and against innocent victims, were then supported by the state. I completely understand that, but I simply say that people like Peter are getting older. They will die at some point; many people have died in the intervening period. It was back in 2014, at the signing of the Stormont House agreement, that the state in our country effectively decreed that we should be offering this support to those people.

Bob Stewart: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Owen Smith: Let me finish this point then I will gladly give way.
My simple plea is that we must not let the perfect be the enemy of the good in this place. We should legislate to provide for these people. I think that that will happen, and I am pleased about that, but I urge the Secretary of State to get on with it.

Bob Stewart: It should not be beyond the wit of man to devise a system where someone who has actually caused damage to himself is not part of this scheme. Peter requires to be compensated as much as possible and as quickly as possible. It may well be that we will be bringing further measures back to the House, because, frankly, it does not look to me like we will get the Northern Ireland Executive up and running within the time period, and it is time for us to take some action to support people in Northern Ireland.

Owen Smith: I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. Gentleman. It should not be beyond the wit of man to create some sort of process and a mechanism to do this, but, to date, it has been beyond the wit of the men and women in this place and in Northern Ireland to do so. That is because of the thorny issue of how we define a victim in Northern Ireland. I understand that that is a complex area from which there would be many ramifications, but we really must legislate on this.
Finally, on the victim’s pension, I want to pay tribute to the work of the Wave group in Northern Ireland, which has been quite brilliant in supporting the victims of the troubles and in pressing the case for a pension. It is doing great work, and I know that the Secretary of State is a great fan of all that it has done. I also wish to pay tribute to Sir Anthony Hart, who, I was shocked to learn in the Chamber today, died just this morning. Sir Anthony was a very distinguished judge who took on a very difficult task in 2012 on behalf of the Assembly to undertake a review into the historical abuse in 22 homes run by the Catholic Church, the Church of Ireland and  Barnardo’s in Northern Ireland between 1922 and the 1990s. It was the biggest such inquiry ever undertaken in the UK, and it found that there had been grievous abuse of boys and girls in these homes over a very long period, and he found—he undertook harrowing work—that there should be compensation to the tune of £7,000 to £100,000 paid out to those victims. Sir Anthony died this morning with his work unfinished, with the legislation not passed either by the Assembly or by this place, and that is a badge of shame for politicians in Northern Ireland and in this place. We desperately need to act on this, too, because those victims deserve it; they deserve Northern Ireland’s politicians to do it, but if those politicians cannot, they deserve us in this place to take our responsibility and to legislate here.

Layla Moran: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Owen Smith). I rise to speak in support of new clauses 1 and 10, and the string of amendments, especially amendment 9, which is a very important compromise amendment when it comes to what we are trying to do today. I will start with the issue of equal marriage.
It will not have escaped us all that it was London Pride just this weekend, and we had a message from the Prime Minister to the LGBTQI+ community across the UK, in which she said:
“I will only be your Prime Minister for a few more weeks. But I will be your ally for the rest of my life.”
As other hon. Members have mentioned, an ally is not simply someone who stands up and says, “I’m with you.” An ally is someone who stands up and does something. In successive Prime Minister’s questions, we keep hearing the word “legacy”, and what a legacy this would be for the Prime Minister. When she was Home Secretary, she helped—pushed by my dear friend Baroness Featherstone, the former Member for Hornsey and Wood Green—to put through the equal marriage legislation, and she could be the Prime Minister who allows that legislation to apply across the UK. I sincerely hope that is where we get to today.
I hear the worries about our having to take these decisions, but the fact is that there is no devolved legislature for us to supersede right now; the Northern Ireland Assembly has not sat for two years. I contacted Members of that body this morning to say, “We’re doing this. Is there any particular message that you would like me to send to my fellow Members of Parliament?” Stephen Farry—an MLA for our sister party, Alliance—said that he would obviously much prefer it if MLAs were able to implement such measures themselves, but wanted to convey the following message: “Don’t be frightened”. They are behind what we are trying to do. We forget that the democratically elected Northern Irish MPs who sit here, very rightly expressing the views of their constituents, represent just one of many parties in Northern Ireland, the majority of which support equal marriage, as was shown in the vote in 2015. The Alliance party has been challenging and requesting reform of the petition of concern for a while because of the outcome of the 2015 vote, so it is worth reminding ourselves that we should be—in this case, anyway—pushing at an open door. And we can see it ourselves; 76% of people in Northern Ireland want equal marriage.
I was grateful to be able to visit Belfast and speak to students at Lagan College. It is all a bit of a mess there right now, but the families of some of those students  would normally have voted for the DUP. The students said that they were embarrassed that Northern Ireland did not have equal marriage and that they would much rather see it brought in. They did not understand how society had moved so far in one direction, yet Northern Ireland was lagging behind.
Interestingly, Barnardo’s has come out for equal marriage, as has the Children’s Commissioner for Northern Ireland—and so have the businesses I have spoken to; they told me that Northern Ireland not yet having equal marriage sent a message to the workers they were trying to attract: “This is a slightly odd place.” That is not at all a reflection of what Belfast is actually like. Northern Ireland needs to move with the times. It is entirely right that this place does what Northern Ireland had already asked for before the power-sharing arrangements broke down, and it is for that reason that I am proud to be a co-sponsor of new clause 1.
I turn to the thornier issue of abortion. No one here can fail to be moved by what we have heard—not just by Sarah Ewart’s story, but by all the others too. Until I became an MP, I did not realise that there was this extraordinary discrepancy between the law on abortion in Northern Ireland and in the rest of the UK. I simply did not know, because in the UK media, in general, this kind of thing is not really spoken about. So one of the very first things I did when I was elected was to sign the amendment that allows Northern Irish women to access abortion in the UK. We know that that is not enough—that such provision needs to be closer to home.
Some have quoted polls suggesting that 64% of people in Northern Ireland do not want Westminster to legislate on abortion. The advantage of speaking last is that I have been able to look that up. The poll conducted was of 1,013 people. It was indeed the case that 64% of people agreed that this place should not legislate, but no mention was made of the fact that there was not a working Stormont. In a similar poll—Members can read it for themselves online and look at the numbers—the question made the position clear by asking whether, if Stormont was not working, Westminster should legislate on the issue, and 66% said that we should do so.

Eddie Hughes: My memory might be vague, but my recollection is that the Northern Ireland Assembly itself voted on this issue in 2016. That feels very recent consideration, regardless of that poll and its validity.

Layla Moran: That is the point—at the moment, the legislation cannot be pushed through. The Assembly voted and was then unable to do anything about it. Given the human rights abuses that have been identified by the Court, and given that this place has the power to uphold our international human rights obligations, it is entirely right that we take this issue on. That vote was in 2016, but the High Court rulings are recent, and we know that one is coming down the line that will probably end up putting this to bed.
I genuinely think that amendment 9 is a good compromise, with its sunset clause that makes the provision disappear as soon as power-sharing can resume. To those who say that we absolutely should not do this and that no one wants us to do so, I say that that is not true. If they cannot go as far as to support new clause 10, I suggest that they consider amendment 9, which does  have that sunset clause and simply gives the Government the right to find a way through. That, surely, we can all support.

Sylvia Hermon: The hon. Lady is of course absolutely right. We do not have a functioning Assembly. We have not had one since January 2017 and there is no prospect of it any time soon. It is absolutely unacceptable that last year over 1,000 women had to leave Northern Ireland, their homeland, to seek an abortion in England, Wales or Scotland. That cannot be right. It should be done closer to home—that is, it should be made available. It is not compulsory; it is about making it available. It is entirely a woman’s choice.

Layla Moran: I thank the hon. Lady deeply for her intervention, and for her tireless work on this issue.
In the end, this comes down to what is the right thing to do. We have polls that point in two different directions and voices here from different parts of the spectrum, but the question is what would we want for our own constituents—what is the right thing to do? It is surely wrong, particularly in cases of fatal foetal abnormality, rape, incest—things for which I did not realise women could not get abortions for anywhere in the western civilised world—that even in our own United Kingdom there are women who have to travel hundreds of miles to another country altogether, across the water, to access such provision.
We have an immense opportunity to right some really, really awful wrongs. I think that most people in this country would consider this a no-brainer. It should have already happened, but it has not because of process. Please let us not allow process to get in the way of doing what is right.

John Penrose: This has been a difficult debate because it has laid bare some fundamental differences in approach. It has been, predominantly, a respectful debate between people who have strongly held and highly principled views on opposite sides of some very important and tricky cultural issues, but it has laid bare some fundamental differences of opinion and divisions in our society, in the Chamber and in parts of Northern Ireland at the very least.
There have been some barnstorming speeches, including from my good friend, my right hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert), whose speech was outstanding, and the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Ged Killen), who made a passionate argument. I will not embarrass Members by going through them all, but I mentioned others when concluding the Second Reading debate. We also heard some rather quieter but equally respectful and careful comments and arguments from people such as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who gave a measured and careful exposition of why he and his constituents feel the way they do, and my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce), who spoke in a similar vein. It illustrates the care with which everybody has had to approach these issues. I am grateful for all the contributions that Members have made.
This is an important Bill, and we need to get it right; that was made clear on Second Reading yesterday. I will attempt to take the amendments in this group   in a sensible order and will be glad to give way when Members wish to probe the Government’s position further.
In opening my remarks, I want to make clear the Government’s view that many, if not most, of the amendments before the Committee relate to devolved matters. As many Members have said this afternoon, those devolved issues should rightly be the responsibility of the Northern Ireland Assembly. Our constitutional settlement for Northern Ireland is based on the fact that Parliament has devolved responsibility for these matters to local politicians. While Parliament retains its sovereignty in relation to these areas, we must tread extremely carefully.
However, the Northern Ireland Assembly is not sitting and has not been sitting for more than two years. That is a source of huge frustration not only to those of us here today, but to people in Northern Ireland and the country at large. That frustration is starting to boil over. Patience is wearing thin, and people are increasingly unwilling to wait much longer. The result is the long list of amendments before us, which would expand and lengthen in a whole range of areas a simple, straightforward Bill that only seeks to change two dates—that is all it seeks to do.
First, there are amendments on issues of conscience—same-sex marriage and abortion—on which there are traditionally free votes in Parliament. I would like to take this opportunity to confirm that my party does not intend to break that important principle today. These votes will be up to everyone’s individual consciences, and I think I am right in saying that I have heard that from a number of other parties.

Nick Brown: For the avoidance of any doubt whatsoever, the position is the same on our side.

John Penrose: That is a rare intervention from an Opposition Whip. I am delighted to hear that, as I am sure Labour Members are too.
There will be free votes on issues of conscience on both sides of the House. As I will set out, the Government are willing to accept some of the amendments on reporting commitments where Members do not wish to withdraw their amendments. However, most of those amendments ask the UK Government to report on devolved matters. As I said, those are not technically matters for us, and I hope the Committee will therefore tread carefully and think carefully about the way it uses those powers today.
The other broad category of amendments relates to requirements to debate certain matters, often the reports requested in other amendments. The Government would prefer not to accept those amendments, but we are happy to commit to making an oral statement to accompany and respond to the reports that are required under clause 3 of the Bill and which may be amended to be expanded. That oral statement, I hope, will provide the House with ample and proper set-piece opportunities to debate the issues raised by those reports for as long as the Speaker sees fit. I suspect, given prior performance, that those debates could go on for some time.

Sylvia Hermon: I am most grateful to the Minister for giving way so early in his speech. In the light of the untimely and shocking death of Sir Anthony Hart this  morning, will the Minister give a firm commitment that the Government—the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is present in the Chamber—will implement at the earliest opportunity Sir Anthony’s recommendations, which he made after very thoughtful and careful consideration? We are the losers without him, and it would be a wonderful testament to him and his legacy if the Government gave that firm commitment today.

John Penrose: If the hon. Lady will possess her soul in patience, I will come to that important point later; I want to take matters in the order in which they arose in the debate, but I will come to that—I am sure that she will pull me up if I do not.
I hope that a proper oral statement is an acceptable alternative to appropriating large swathes of parliamentary time to debate individual issues and reports separately.
On new clause 1, which proposes regulations for introducing same-sex marriage in Northern Ireland, I should start by saying that there are fiercely held and strongly principled views on both sides of the issue, as we have heard during the debate. Whether we are in favour of or against same-sex marriage, and whether we believe that devolution should trump human rights, or that human rights should trump devolution, I hope that we can all agree that this is a significant legislative proposal, in terms of its importance and complexity, and that therefore it must not be delivered without careful consideration and analysis of whether we are getting it right.
Personally, on a free-vote issue, I appreciate and sympathise with what the hon. Member for St Helens North (Conor McGinn) is trying to achieve, and I appreciate that many people in Northern Ireland are tired of waiting for their rights to be recognised on an equal footing with those of friends, family and neighbours across the rest of the UK. However, I also appreciate that that view is not universally held across Northern Ireland, as outlined by numerous Members, including the hon. Member for Strangford.

Gregory Campbell: The Minister talks about human rights versus the devolution settlement. Does he agree that what came across in the debate, and hopefully it will be held not just here in Great Britain but in Northern Ireland, is that it is the careful selection and cherry-picking of some human rights issues but not others that causes the frustration?

John Penrose: Yes, I absolutely accept that there is great concern that by creating one list of amendments today we will, by omission, leave out some very important things indeed. I am afraid that is inherent in the frustration, which I referred to at the start of my remarks, about the fact that the Northern Ireland Assembly has not sat for well over two years now. I am afraid that frustration will only grow as that period lengthens. That is why the original purpose of the Bill, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State explained yesterday on Second Reading, is very simply to give a little more time for the Stormont talks to bear fruit. While those talks still have breath and life in them, I hope that everybody here will support that opportunity and wish the talks well.
Although I appreciate and sympathise with what the hon. Member for St Helens North is trying to achieve, I must at the same time issue a note of warning to  anybody considering voting for it. It is a technical note of warning, rather than one of principle, because the principles have been debated extensively during our discussions this afternoon—because this is a free-vote issue, the Government will not be putting across a principled view, one way or another. The technical point, which needs to be made to ensure that everyone is aware, is that, due to the current drafting of new clause 1, the changes that would need to occur before the first same-sex couple could legally marry in Northern Ireland are probably not achievable, just as a practical matter, by October. There are many policy questions to be worked through that have not yet been properly considered for the Northern Ireland-specific context, which might require a different response from the one in England, Wales and Scotland.
That applies to matters such as pensions, the conversion of civil partnerships, gender recognition—we have heard many of those points made in contributions this afternoon—protecting the rights to freedom of religion and expression, and allowing religious institutions via opt-in, rather than compelling them, to engage in and perform same-sex marriage ceremonies. I would issue a technical warning to colleagues who are considering supporting the new clause in principle. Whether Members agree with it or not, and however they balance the competing claims of devolution and broader human rights, they should bear in mind the fact that it may need substantial further work before it can achieve its intended effect.
Amendment 13 deals with same-sex marriage reporting and would commit the Government to publishing a report on progress made in preparing legislation to make provision for the marriage of same-sex couples in Northern Ireland when publishing the overall progress report under clause 1. As I have mentioned, we are willing to accept it, but it would be afforded a free vote should it be pressed to a Division.
I turn to amendments on abortion, specifically amendments 11 and 9. We have mentioned that there are strongly held views, and this issue has attracted a great deal of debate over the past year. I can confirm that the Government would be content to accept amendments 9 and 11 on the basis that we are happy to report to Parliament on important matters on which everyone has strong views. I hope that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) will be appreciative of our willingness and good will in that area.
Given the tightness of time, I shall move on, as I want to make sure that I cover everything. There are other abortion amendments, notably new clause 10, tabled by the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy), and amendments 11 and 12, which are associated proposals that deal with statements and bits and pieces. What I want to say about new clause 10 is similar to what I said about new clause 1—different topic, same point. Regardless of how Members are minded to vote on the underlying principle, there are real and genuine concerns about the technical effectiveness of new clause 10, so I issue the same technical note of warning to anyone wishing to vote for it if they have made up their mind on the basic points of principle that have been debated extensively.

Stewart McDonald: Can I check that, despite the technical warnings, which the Minister is probably quite right to issue, the Government would honour the result if new clauses 1 and 10 were accepted? Would they facilitate those requirements?

John Penrose: Absolutely. This is also a free-vote issue, so if this passes a vote it will go into law and become part of primary legislation. Ministers would be bound by it and Government would proceed. People should be aware that many of the same concerns that I expressed about new clause 1 apply to new clause 10, so there may be issues.

Vicky Ford: rose—

Emma Little Pengelly: rose—

John Penrose: I will give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford), and then to the hon. Member for Belfast South (Emma Little Pengelly), but then I must make progress.

Vicky Ford: New clause 10 says that the Government should implement the full CEDAW recommendations. The first recommendation in the CEDAW report is to repeal sections 58 and 59 of the Offences Against the Person Act. Does he agree that repeal would affect all of the UK, including England as well as Northern Ireland?

John Penrose: I am not sure that I have time, but I could go through other technical concerns. That is only one of the potential issues—there are broader points that would need to be fixed. But the question is whether or not the House is interested in the principle here, I suspect, on a free vote.

Emma Little Pengelly: Is it not the case that the way in which new clause 10 is drafted is very broad and covers all the recommendations? There are many technical issues in those recommendations and there are many policy questions that need to be asked. It is wholly inappropriate that that should happen by regulation, with no scrutiny or process to decide what the policy should be on each and every recommendation.

John Penrose: As I mentioned in my response to new clause 1, it is entirely probable that it would not be possible to achieve this by October at all and, when we made those changes more broadly for the rest of the UK in previous years, that was done by primary legislation, not secondary legislation. The hon. Lady makes a valid point. I wanted to make sure, as people reach principled decisions on an issue of conscience, on a free-vote issue on both sides of the House, that they are aware of the technical concerns so they are making an informed principled choice as well.
I will move on to new clauses 4 and 8; I am trying to pick up speed so that I do not run out of time. These new clauses would oblige the Government to schedule a debate on the issue of progress towards meeting international obligations in relation to the reproductive rights of women, and on the issue of progress towards implementing marriage for same-sex couples in Northern Ireland. I have already mentioned that the Government intend to make an oral statement to accompany the report under clause 3. I hope that people will be comfortable with that and that the Opposition Front-Bench team will feel able not to press those amendments.
I will now move on to victims’ pensions. Amendment 10 and new clause 2 commit the Government to publishing a report on progress towards preparing legislation implementing a pension for those seriously injured in the troubles, and for that report to be debated in Parliament. This is a very important issue and the UK Government take it very seriously. That is why the Secretary of State requested updated and comprehensive advice from the Victims’ Commissioner, which we have recently received. The completion of that advice represents an important step in taking forward a pension for victims of the troubles. The Northern Ireland Office is therefore undertaking detailed work on the next steps, based on that advice, with factual input and support from the Northern Ireland civil service. We will keep the House fully updated on progress and we will therefore be accepting amendment 10 to provide a report on those issues.

Edward Leigh: Will the Minister confirm what I understand from his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford): on a very narrow Bill, which is essentially about setting dates for the Northern Ireland Executive, we are going to change the entire abortion law of the entire United Kingdom?

John Penrose: No, I think I can probably reassure my right hon. Friend on that, but I would reaffirm to him that there are real technical concerns about the new clause and that those will have to be fixed. He is broadly right on the broader point that a very simple Bill, which is only supposed to change two dates, has ended up with a very large number of other amendments attached, so he has a broader underlying point at least.

Fiona Bruce: Will the Minister give way?

John Penrose: I will give way once more, and then I really must make progress because I do want to get through my speech.

Fiona Bruce: For the sake of clarification, the CEDAW report recommends the repeal of sections 58 and 59 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. Will that repeal affect the entirety of the UK, not just Northern Ireland? That is the question.

John Penrose: As I understand it, if we repealed that, yes it would. However, I think the point has been made elsewhere that that is not necessarily the route we have to go down because those sections have already been dealt with in different ways for the rest of the UK.
I do not want to revisit the substance of this, particularly as it has been debated extensively already, so with everyone’s permission, I would like to move on—it being incredibly important—to the victims of historical institutional abuse. I express my sincere sadness at the death of Sir Anthony Hart. He was a dedicated public servant and a highly respected High Court Judge. As chair of the historical abuse inquiry in Northern Ireland, he provided a comprehensive set of recommendations for redress to be delivered to victims and survivors of historical institutional abuse. I am sure our thoughts and condolences go to his family and friends after his unexpected and very recent demise.
I understand the frustration of victims and survivors of this terrible abuse. We absolutely must do everything we can to ensure that the victims and survivors get the redress that they deserve. Following recommendations by the Northern Ireland parties, the Executive Office is working with the Office of the Legislative Counsel to redraft the legislation required to establish the redress scheme. The Opposition propose that clause 3 include a requirement to publish by 11 September a report on progress made in implementing the Hart report, including a compensation scheme under a redress board. Given the importance of the matter, the Government are happy to accept the amendment, and will report back to Parliament on that vital matter.
Many people have been concerned about the collection of amendments in the group. They have been concerned about its size, its length, its composition and the set of priorities that it seems to reveal. I would just say, on a broader point, that the concerns that were uncovered in yesterday’s Second Reading debate have become ever clearer and more specific during our debate and discussions in the Chamber today. The concerns are simply that, because people are getting worried about the failure of the Northern Ireland Executive and the Stormont Assembly to sit, there is a danger that the credibility of that Assembly, and with it the credibility of the Northern Ireland democratic settlement, will begin to be undermined —that it will begin to be eroded and, with that, we are starting down, potentially, an extremely dangerous slope, where the credibility of democracy, and of peaceful resolution of disagreements, is eroded in a historically bitterly divided society, and democratic solutions cease to be the obvious answer. That is something which we must avoid at all costs; to prevent that is an essential goal, which we must never lose sight of.

Vicky Ford: Many Members have come into the House who have not had a chance to listen to the longer debate. I wonder whether the Minister would clarify again which of the amendments that are related to ongoing reporting requests the Government accept.

John Penrose: Dame Eleanor, I had probably better not try your patience by going through them all. We have accepted a fairly large number of reporting requirements and we are happy to report back to this House on that basis. With my hon. Friend’s indulgence, I will perhaps go through the individual amendment numbers with her separately afterwards. With that, I draw my remarks to a close.

Conor McGinn: I pay tribute to all those colleagues who have taken part in the debate; it was characterised by strongly held, sincere views, articulated in an environment and atmosphere of respect and understanding. Although I know that disagreement remains over the substance of the issues that we spoke about, it is my strong contention that new clause 1, which stands in my name, lends itself to be supported by the Committee of the whole House tonight and I will press it to a Division.

New Clause 1

Marriage of same-sex couples in Northern Ireland
(1) The Secretary of State must make regulations to change the law relating to marriage in Northern Ireland to provide that marriage between same-sex couples is lawful.
(2) Regulations under this section must be in force no later than 21 October 2019, subject to subsections (3) and (4).
(3) A statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection (1)—
(a) must be laid before both Houses of Parliament;
(b) is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
(4) If a Northern Ireland Executive is formed before the regulations under this section come into force, any regulations made under this section and any extant obligations arising under subsection (1) shall cease to have effect.—(Conor McGinn.)
This new clause would require UK secondary legislation to extend same-sex marriage to Northern Ireland unless a Northern Ireland Executive is formed by 21 October 2019.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

The Committee divided: Ayes 383, Noes 73.
Question accordingly agreed to.
New clause 1 read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 2

Pension for victims and survivors of Troubles-related incidents: debate

‘(1) A Minister of the Crown must, within the period of two sitting days beginning with the first sitting day on or after the day on which the report on progress made towards preparing legislation to implement a pension for seriously injured victims and survivors of Troubles-related incidents mentioned in section 3 is published, make arrangements for—
(a) a motion to the effect that the House of Commons has approved that report to be moved in that House by a Minister of the Crown within the period of seven Commons sitting days beginning with the day on which the relevant report mentioned in section 3 is published, and
(b) a motion for the House of Lords to take note of the report mentioned in paragraph (a) to be moved in that House by a Minister of the Crown within the period of seven Lords sitting days beginning with the day on which the relevant report mentioned in section 3 is published.
(2) In this section—
“Commons sitting day” means a day on which the House of Commons is sitting (and a day is only a day on which the House of Commons is sitting if the House begins to sit on that day);
“Lords sitting day” means a day on which the House of Lords is sitting (and a day is only a day on which the House of Lords is sitting if the House begins to sit on that day).”—(Tony Lloyd.)
This new clause is linked to amendment 1 on a report on progress made towards preparing legislation to implementing a pension for seriously injured victims and survivors of Troubles-related incidents, and provides for the report to be debated in Parliament.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill

New Clause 6

Historical institutional abuse in Northern Ireland: debate

‘(1) A Minister of the Crown must, within the period of two sitting days beginning with the first sitting day on or after the day on which the report on progress made towards implementing the recommendations made by the Report of the Inquiry into Historical Institutional Abuse in Northern Ireland between 1922 and 1995 is published, make arrangements for—
(a) a motion to the effect that the House of Commons has approved that report to be moved in that House by a Minister of the Crown within the period of seven Commons sitting days beginning with the day on which the relevant report mentioned in section 3 is published, and
(b) a motion for the House of Lords to take note of the report mentioned in paragraph (a) to be moved in that House by a Minister of the Crown within the period of seven Lords sitting days beginning with the day on which the relevant report mentioned in section 3 is published.
(2) In this section—
“Commons sitting day” means a day on which the House of Commons is sitting (and a day is only a day on which the House of Commons is sitting if the House begins to sit on that day);
“Lords sitting day” means a day on which the House of Lords is sitting (and a day is only a day on which the House of Lords is sitting if the House begins to sit on that day).”—(Tony Lloyd.)
This new clause is linked to amendment 3 on a report on progress towards implementing the recommendations made by the Hart Report of the Inquiry into Historical Institutional Abuse in Northern Ireland between 1922 and 1995, and provides for the report to be debated in Parliament.—(Tony Lloyd.)
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 10

International obligations

‘(1) In accordance with the requirements of section 26 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 regarding international obligations, the Secretary of State must make regulations by statutory instrument to give effect to the recommendations of the Report of the Inquiry concerning the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland under article 8 of the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women.
(2) Regulations under this section must come into force by 21 October 2019, subject to subsections (3) and (4).
(3) A statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection (1)—
(a) must be laid before both Houses of Parliament;
(b) is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
(4) If a Northern Ireland Executive is formed before 21 October 2019, any extant obligations arising under subsection (1) shall cease to have effect.”—(Stella Creasy.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

The Committee divided: Ayes 332, Noes 99.
Question accordingly agreed to.
New clause 10 read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

Nicholas Boles: On a point of order, Dame Rosie. I know we have very important subjects that Members are keen to debate, so I do not want to detain you, but could you advise me how we can indicate our reaction to the grossly offensive attack by the President of the United States on Her Majesty’s ambassador, and indeed on Her Majesty’s Prime Minister? This afternoon, he has sent some messages that amount to gross discourtesy, and I am certain that many hon. Members will want to indicate that the United Kingdom will not be bullied by anyone, not even the President of the United States.

Rosie Winterton: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. As I am sure he will appreciate, this is not really a matter for the Chair. Obviously, he has put his views on the record and he will be well aware that mechanisms are available to him whereby he might be able to pursue this matter further. I am sure the Table Office would advise him on that, not that he necessarily needs that advice.

Mike Gapes: Further to that point of order, Dame Rosie. Have either you or Mr Speaker had any indication that the Government intend to make a statement about President Trump’s remarks and, in particular, whether they would take reciprocal action as to any reduction in our diplomatic activity in the United States by responding in kind towards the US ambassador in this country?

Rosie Winterton: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that point of order. The short answer is: no, I have not received any such indication. However, as I said, there are ways in which these issues can be raised in the House.

Clause 1

Extension of period for forming an Executive

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Rosie Winterton: With this it will be convenient to discuss:
Clause 2 stand part.
Amendment 14, in clause3,page2,line13,leave out “21 October” and insert “4 September”.
This amendment would bring forward the date for a progress report to 4 September 2019.
Amendment 8,page2,line13,after “report” insert
“and make an oral statement to Parliament”.
Amendment 6,page2,line15,at end insert—
“(1A) The report under subsection (1) must include a report on progress made towards protecting veterans of the Armed Forces and other security personnel from repeated investigation for Troubles-related incidents by introducing a presumption of non-prosecution, in the absence of compelling new evidence, whether in the form of a Qualified Statute of Limitations or by some other legal mechanism.”
The subsection would include placing a duty on the Secretary of State to report on the options available to ensure that veterans of the Troubles would be able to assist in a truth recovery process, for the benefit of bereaved families, without fear of prosecution.
Amendment 7,page2,line15,at end insert—
“(1A) The report under subsection (1) must include a report on progress made towards developing new prosecution guidance for legacy cases of Troubles-related incidents by the Attorney General for Northern Ireland to take into account whether or not the person who allegedly committed an offence had the means to do so because that person had been lawfully supplied with a deadly weapon, with a presumption in favour of prosecuting in cases where a person who has allegedly committed an offence had the means to do so because that person had been unlawfully supplied with a deadly weapon.”
The subsection would place a duty on the Secretary to State to report on progress made towards a new prosecution guidance taking into account whether or not the person who allegedly committed an offence had been lawfully armed.
Amendment 15,page2,line15,at end insert—
“(1A) The Secretary of State shall make a further report under subsection 1 on or before 9 October 2019 at least every fourteen calendar days thereafter until either an Executive is formed or until 18 December 2019, whichever is the sooner.”
This amendment would require fortnightly reports to be made after the conference recess until an Executive was formed, or until the December recess.
Amendment 18,page2,line15,at end insert—
“(1A) Before making a report under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must publish a report on or before 4 September 2019 on progress made towards preparing legislation confirming the application of the Armed Forces Covenant in the provision of public services in Northern Ireland.”
The subsection would include placing a duty on the Secretary of State to report on the preparation of legislation confirming the application of the Armed Forces Covenant in Northern Ireland.
Amendment 19,page2,line15,at end insert—
“(1A) Before making a report under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must publish a report on or before 4 September 2019 on whether the definition of “victim” in Article 3 of the Victims and Survivors (Northern Ireland) Order 2006 (Order No. 2953 (N.I. 17)) should be revised to apply only to a person who is injured or affected wholly through the actions of another person.”
The subsection would include placing a duty on the Secretary of State to report on the definition of “victim” in the Victims and Survivors (Northern Ireland) Order 2006.
Amendment 21, page2,line15,at end insert—
“(1A) The report under subsection (1) must include a report to be published on or before 4 September 2019 on progress made in Northern Ireland on—
(a) the law on gaming machines;
(b) the law on online gambling;
(c) the number of people who are seeking treatment for problem gambling;
(d) the services available to people seeking problem gambling; and
(e) the level of support from the gambling industry for problem gambling.”
The subsection would include placing a duty on the Secretary of State to report on various matters related to the law on gambling in Northern Ireland and support for those experiencing problem gambling.
Amendment 22,page2,line15,at end insert—
“(1A) The report under subsection (1) must include a report to be published on or before 4 September 2019 on progress on the use of discretionary powers to provide assistance and support under section 18(9) of the Human Trafficking and Exploitation (Criminal Justice and Support for Victims) Act (Northern Ireland) 2015. The report must cover—
(a) how many times the Department has decided it is necessary to provide assistance and support for victims of human trafficking for whom there has been a conclusive determination that the person is a victim of trafficking in human beings;
(b) the reasons the Department has decided it is necessary to provide assistance and support for victims of human trafficking for whom there has been a conclusive determination that the person is a victim of trafficking in human beings; and
(c) the immigration status of those victims of human trafficking for whom there has been a conclusive determination that the person is a victim of trafficking in human beings who are receiving assistance and support beyond the relevant period.”
The subsection would include placing a duty on the Secretary of State to report on the assistance and support offered to victims of human trafficking in Northern Ireland from receiving a conclusive grounds decision.
Amendment 23,page2,line15,at end insert—
“(1A) The report under subsection (1) must include a report on progress made in preparing legislation to extend the reporting requirements of donations to political parties in Northern Ireland to all donations made after 1 January 2014”.
Amendment 24, page2,line15,at end insert—
“(1A) The report under subsection (1) must include a report on progress made in preparing legislation to make provision to recognise coercive control and stalking in Northern Ireland”.
Amendment 16, page2,line16,leave out “the report” and insert
“any report under this section”.
This is a consequential amendment.
Amendment 17, page2,line16,at end insert—
“(2A) A Minister of the Crown must, within the period of two sitting days beginning with the day on which a report under this section is published, make arrangements for—
(a) a motion to the effect that the House of Commons has approved that report to be moved in that House by a Minister of the Crown within the period of three Commons sitting days beginning with the day on which the report under this section is published, and
(b) a motion for the House of Lords to take note of the report mentioned in paragraph (a) to be moved in that House by a Minister of the Crown within the period of three Lords sitting days beginning with the day on which the relevant report mentioned in section 3 is published.
(2B) In this section—
“Commons sitting day” means a day on which the House of Commons is sitting (and a day is only a day on which the House of Commons is sitting if the House begins to sit on that day);
“Lords sitting day” means a day on which the House of Lords is sitting (and a day is only a day on which the House of Lords is sitting if the House begins to sit on that day).”
This amendment would require progress reports to be debated.
Clause 3 stand part.
Clause 4 stand part.
New clause 11—International obligations: oral statement—
“In the absence of Northern Ireland Ministers to address the matters identified by the Report of the inquiry concerning the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland under article 8 of the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland must make an oral statement to the House of Commons on progress on implementing recommendations in accordance with section 26(1) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998.”
New clause 12—Requirement on Secretary of State—
“If an Executive is not formed by 21 October 2019, nothing in this Act shall remove the requirement on the Secretary of State set out in section 26(1) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 to direct action in the absence of ministers to ensure that all Northern Ireland departments comply with international obligations, and in particular the recommendations made by the Report of the Inquiry concerning the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland under article 8 of the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women.”
New clause 15—Northern Ireland: Armed Forces Covenant—
“(1) The Secretary of State must make regulations to confirm the application of the Armed Forces Covenant in the provision of public services in Northern Ireland.
(2) Regulations under this section must be in force no later than 21 October 2019, subject to subsections (3) and (4).
(3) A statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection (1)—
(a) must be laid before both Houses of Parliament;
(b) is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
(4) If a Northern Ireland Executive is formed before the regulations under this section come into force, any regulations made under this section and any extant obligations arising under subsection (1) shall cease to have effect.”
This new clause would require UK secondary legislation to confirm the application of the Armed Forces Covenant in Northern Ireland.
New clause 16—Armed Forces Covenant in Northern Ireland: debate—
“(1) A Minister of the Crown must, within the period of two sitting days beginning with the first sitting day on or after the day on which the report on progress made towards preparing legislation confirming the application of the Armed Forces Covenant in the provision of public services in Northern Ireland is published, make arrangements for—
(a) a motion to the effect that the House of Commons has approved that report to be moved in that House by a Minister of the Crown within the period of seven  Commons sitting days beginning with the day on which the relevant report mentioned in section 3 is published, and
(b) a motion for the House of Lords to take note of the report mentioned in paragraph (a) to be moved in that House by a Minister of the Crown within the period of seven Lords sitting days beginning with the day on which the relevant report mentioned in section 3 is published.
(2) In this section—
“Commons sitting day” means a day on which the House of Commons is sitting (and a day is only a day on which the House of Commons is sitting if the House begins to sit on that day);
“Lords sitting day” means a day on which the House of Lords is sitting (and a day is only a day on which the House of Lords is sitting if the House begins to sit on that day).”
This new clause is linked to amendment 18 on a report on progress made towards preparing legislation to confirm the application of the Armed Forces Covenant in Northern Ireland.
New clause 17—Northern Ireland: Definition of victim—
“(1) The Secretary of State must make regulations to amend the definition of “victim” in Article 3 of the Victims and Survivors (Northern Ireland) Order 2006 (Order No. 2953 (N.I. 17)) so that the definition applies only to a person who is injured or affected wholly through the actions of another person.
(2) Regulations under this section must be in force no later than 21 October 2019, subject to subsections (3) and (4).
(3) A statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection (1)—
(a) must be laid before both Houses of Parliament;
(b) is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
(4) If a Northern Ireland Executive is formed before the regulations under this section come into force, any regulations made under this section and any extant obligations arising under subsection (1) shall cease to have effect.”
This new clause would require UK secondary legislation to amend the definition of “victim” in the Victims and Survivors (Northern Ireland) Order 2006.
New clause 18—Definition of victim: debate—
“(1) A Minister of the Crown must, within the period of two sitting days beginning with the first sitting day on or after the day on which the report on whether the definition of “victim” in Article 3 of the Victims and Survivors (Northern Ireland) Order 2006 (Order No. 2953 (N.I. 17)) should be revised to apply only to a person who is injured or affected wholly through the actions of another person is published, make arrangements for—
(a) a motion to the effect that the House of Commons has approved that report to be moved in that House by a Minister of the Crown within the period of seven Commons sitting days beginning with the day on which the relevant report mentioned in section 3 is published, and
(b) a motion for the House of Lords to take note of the report mentioned in paragraph (a) to be moved in that House by a Minister of the Crown within the period of seven Lords sitting days beginning with the day on which the relevant report mentioned in section 3 is published.
(2) In this section—
“Commons sitting day” means a day on which the House of Commons is sitting (and a day is only a day on which the House of Commons is sitting if the House begins to sit on that day);
“Lords sitting day” means a day on which the House of Lords is sitting (and a day is only a day on which the House of Lords is sitting if the House begins to sit on that day).”
This new clause is linked to amendment 19 on a report on whether the definition of “victim” in the Victims and Survivors (Northern Ireland) Order 2006 should be amended by UK secondary legislation.
New clause 20—Law on gambling and support for those experiencing problem gambling in Northern Ireland: debate—
“(1) A Minister of the Crown must, within the period of two sitting days beginning with the first sitting day on or after the day on which the report on gambling in Northern Ireland mentioned in section 3 is published, make arrangements for—
(a) a motion to the effect that the House of Commons has approved that report to be moved in that House by a Minister of the Crown within the period of seven Commons sitting days beginning with the day on which the relevant report mentioned in section 3 is published, and
(b) a motion for the House of Lords to take note of the report mentioned in paragraph (a) to be moved in that House by a Minister of the Crown within the period of seven Lords sitting days beginning with the day on which the relevant report mentioned in section 3 is published.
(2) In this section—
“Commons sitting day” means a day on which the House of Commons is sitting (and a day is only a day on which the House of Commons is sitting if the House begins to sit on that day);
“Lords sitting day” means a day on which the House of Lords is sitting (and a day is only a day on which the House of Lords is sitting if the House begins to sit on that day).”
This new clause is linked to the amendment 21 on a report on progress made on the law on gambling in Northern Ireland and support for problem gambling, and provides for the report to be debated in Parliament.
New clause 21—Assistance and support for victims of human trafficking in Northern Ireland: debate—
“(1) A Minister of the Crown must, within the period of two sitting days beginning with the first sitting day on or after the day on which the report on assistance and support for victims of human trafficking in Northern Ireland mentioned in section 3 is published, make arrangements for—
(a) a motion to the effect that the House of Commons has approved that report to be moved in that House by a Minister of the Crown within the period of seven Commons sitting days beginning with the day on which the relevant report mentioned in section 3 is published, and
(b) a motion for the House of Lords to take note of the report mentioned in paragraph (a) to be moved in that House by a Minister of the Crown within the period of seven Lords sitting days beginning with the day on which the relevant report mentioned in section 3 is published.
(2) In this section—
“Commons sitting day” means a day on which the House of Commons is sitting (and a day is only a day on which the House of Commons is sitting if the House begins to sit on that day);
“Lords sitting day” means a day on which the House of Lords is sitting (and a day is only a day on which the House of Lords is sitting if the House begins to sit on that day).”
This new clause is linked to the amendment 22 on a report on progress made on the law on gambling in Northern Ireland and support for problem gambling, and provides for the report to be debated in Parliament.

Dominic Grieve: Thank you, Dame Rosie; it is a pleasure to participate in this debate and to raise with the House, at this stage, potential  amendments to the legislation that I think are capable of improving it for Northern Ireland, as well as for our country as a whole.
I was a little bit startled when I read a tweet by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Maria Caulfield) in which she, first, described the amendments as “Shameful”, which is of course a matter of her opinion, and secondly, went on to say that I had no interest in Northern Ireland. All I can say is that, having been in the House for 22 years, I have acted as a spokesman on Northern Ireland matters when we were in opposition; I served for six years, I think, on the British-Irish Inter-Parliamentary Body; I was chair of the Conservative Back-Bench committee on Northern Ireland in my early years in the House; I participate actively in the British-Irish Association annual conference; and I try to make myself as frequent a visitor to Northern Ireland as I can, sometimes to give talks and lectures, or, indeed, to visit people, and on a number of occasions I have been there on holiday. Whatever my views may be and however much my hon. Friend may think that they are erroneous, I can absolutely assure her that I have Northern Ireland at heart. I am a Unionist and it matters to me very much indeed.
The position on the amendments is fairly straightforward. There is provision in the Bill for a report to be made to the House on how progress is being made on setting up the Executive. I greatly welcome this measure. I apologise to my hon. Friend for the fact that I was not able to be present for the debate yesterday, but it was a debate on a principle that I entirely supported. However, the measure on the report does not go far enough. Quite apart from anything else, we are at the eleventh hour when it comes to the possibility of setting up an Executive, which I believe is massively desirable for the interests of the people of Northern Ireland. It therefore seems to me to be extremely desirable for Members to provide some further impetus and scrutiny for that process, which is why I chose in amendments 14, 15, 16 and 17, along with my right hon. and hon. Friends who support the amendments, to try to move and accelerate the process forward.
For example, amendment 14 would mean that, rather than the report coming back on 21 October, it would come back on 4 September. In addition, I chose to try to make provision for the close monitoring of the process thereafter by the House, by ensuring with amendment 15 that the Secretary of State would make
“a further report under subsection 1 on or before 9 October 2019”,
which is when we come back from the conference recess, and
“at least every fourteen calendar days thereafter until either an Executive is formed or until 18 December 2019, whichever is the sooner.”
Amendment 16 is consequential to that.
Amendment 17 would provide that, in addition to what I have outlined, and so that the House may have an opportunity to indicate how it feels the direction of travel should go and to encourage the Government in their endeavours, there are opportunities within
“two sitting days beginning with the day on which a report under this section is published”
for
“a motion to the effect that the House of Commons has approved that report to be moved”.
There is a similar provision for the House of Lords, which their lordships will of course wish to consider in due course. I believe the amendments provide a sensible package that can help to facilitate the setting up of a Northern Ireland Executive, which I dearly want to see.
It has been raised with me, and I entirely accept, that Brexit also features in this matter, and so it should. Brexit threatens Northern Ireland more than almost any other part of the United Kingdom. It threatens it economically; it threatens it in terms of its security; and it threatens it in terms of its cohesion. For all those reasons, we should as a House—particularly, I might add, those of us who consider ourselves to be Unionists—be exceptionally troubled by the current direction of travel. In particular, I cannot escape the fact that I have listened with astonishment to a number of references from people who may be holding high office in the near future, one of whom appears to think that proroguing Parliament to achieve Brexit is an acceptable form of activity for the leader of the Executive, when in fact it is a constitutional enormity and a gross undermining of democracy.
I freely admit that one of the purposes of these amendments is to try to ensure that this extraordinary threat of really an unprecedented character made against this House that we should be prorogued can be banged on the head. Furthermore, the fact that we should be sitting in October to consider these grave matters in relation to Northern Ireland is, in my view, a good reason why these amendments should be supported. I am mindful of the fact that a further amendment, new clause 14, has, for perfectly understandable reasons, not been selected at this stage of the proceedings because of the nature of its scope. It would have effectively provided—I want to make this point very briefly—that Prorogation could not take place, because when these statements and motions should be made and passed, the House would have to be sitting. That is desirable, because as we approach the crisis that is impending on 31 October, if this House wishes to approve a no-deal Brexit, then so be it, but it should be here to do just that, and not pushed into the margins, as some have suggested in this entirely unconstitutional fashion.

Layla Moran: I am extremely grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for giving way. I pay tribute to him for bringing forward these amendments, but is there not a sense of irony here? This Bill is meant to bring back the ability to debate laws in Northern Ireland, yet at the same time this place faces being shut down by whoever becomes Prime Minister. There is a huge irony here. If nothing else, this place should be safeguarding democracy, and I thank him for his amendments, because that is what they will do.

Dominic Grieve: I agree with the hon. Lady. The process of debate is the process by which we continuously moderate each other’s opinions, and by listening to each other, we grow in understanding of the points of view of the other and come to sensible decisions. Heaven knows, if I have tried to do anything during this Brexit process it is to try to encourage a sound process, to prevent catastrophic cliff-edge moments and to enable this House to make reasoned decisions. What this House then decides to do is a matter for the House, but the idea that we can or should be excluded from the process, as some seem to be willing to threaten, is an enormity. Our  democracy will not survive such an assault, and it is incumbent on every single one of us to take action to ensure that that does not happen.

Steve Brine: I understand why my right hon. and learned Friend is speaking to amendments 15, 16 and 17, and I presume moving them formally when he gets asked, but obviously new clause 14, to which he has referred, was not selected. Do amendments 15, 16 and 17 work without new clause 14 being selected?

Dominic Grieve: Yes, and I will tell my hon. Friend exactly why. First, the amendments work in their own right, so if we agree to them, they will provide a structured mechanism, which, short of Prorogation, will ensure that we have those opportunities to consider. If we enact these amendments, I have no doubt that, when the Bill goes to the other place, which is very familiar with the difficulties of our procedures, the Lords will include new clause 14, if they think it pertinent and right, and send it back to this House so that we can then consider it, which is exactly how our parliamentary processes work.

Steve Brine: I am sorry; let me phrase it in another way. Do these amendments, if moved and if passed, prevent the House from being prorogued?

Dominic Grieve: If all the amendments, including new clause 14, were to be passed, yes, it would prevent this House being prorogued, which is why I put them together as a package. I would like to emphasise that, even if we do not have new clause 14, my judgment is that it is worth having the other amendments in their own right. They send a clear signal about this House’s priorities. They lay down a perfectly clear timetable, which is relevant to Northern Ireland in itself. That is why I disagree so much with the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes, who, as I say, rather startled me with her vehemence and her belief that I had some dreadful motives. My motives are twofold: first, they are in the interests of Northern Ireland and trying to get the Executive formed and, secondly, I freely admit that they are in the interests of trying to ensure that the worst dangers of Brexit are mitigated.

Toby Perkins: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is absolutely right that the consequences for Northern Ireland of a no-deal Brexit are very serious. I am sure that he will be as astonished as I was that a survey of members of the Conservative and Unionist party found that a majority of his party members were actually willing to see the break-up of the Union and to see what could happen to Northern Ireland if that issue would stop Brexit. If he does not recognise his own party, in some ways he might not be alone. Can he give us any insight into how the Conservative and Unionist party has got to this place?

Dominic Grieve: I find it very difficult to answer that question. I accept that, because of priorities in this House, it is often the case that insufficient attention is paid to Northern Ireland. During my career, I have had the inestimable benefit of having the views of large numbers of people in Northern Ireland imparted to me. I have been able to go, for example, to the annual conference of the Centre for Cross Border Studies, and  anybody who has gone to look at cross-border issues will realise just how catastrophic a no-deal Brexit would be. I would simply say to my hon. Friends that I appreciate that there are doubtless areas on which they are expert and I am most certainly not, and I do not claim to have the greatest expertise on Northern Ireland— I do not represent that place, although I love it very much—but it is a thing that matters to me very much and that should matter to every hon. Member in this House.

Oliver Letwin: May I just take my right hon. and learned Friend back to the question he was asked a moment or two ago about whether these amendments, in the absence of new clause 14, will prevent Prorogation? Would he agree that there is at least a perfectly serious argument that might run in the Supreme Court—that is, that statute law trumps prerogative even where it does not directly take the prerogative on, and that if that were argued successfully, these amendments would be sufficient to prevent Prorogation?

Dominic Grieve: Yes, I agree. It is perhaps, as lawyers would say, a moot point, but my view is that because it specifies in statute particular days on which things should be happening in this House, it is arguable that it therefore replaces the prerogative because the Queen in Parliament has decreed that certain things should happen by law, and that, of course, replaces the royal prerogative as exercised by Ministers.

Victoria Prentis: As my right hon. and learned Friend knows, I have a great deal of sympathy with his position, but I am very concerned that we are giving problems to the judiciary that really should be resolved in this House. Does he agree?

Dominic Grieve: Yes, I do. I agree entirely, and we should try to avoid doing that, but for the reasons that I have just given—before we start worrying about court challenges—the amendments that I have tabled, taken together, are worth having. After all, even if it does not go to court, it is a pretty clear signal to whoever is Prime Minister that this is what the House wants to be doing in October. I think that is worth having. Of course, we do at times hear that the rumours about Prorogation are completely misplaced and that nobody in their right mind would do it; in my judgment, nobody in their right mind should, so I very much hope that it will not happen, but these days one has cause at times to worry. For that reason, I think this is a very good series of amendments.
Of course, if the other place in its wisdom decides to look at the totality of our amendments, decides that new clause 14 would add value and places it in the Bill, this House would have an opportunity to consider that decision before the Bill goes through, and either to accept it or reject it.

Oliver Letwin: I am very sorry for intervening again, but I think that it may be important later in the other place that this debate be brought out into the open here. Would my right hon. and learned Friend first agree that the reason that Mr Speaker quite rightly did not select new clause 14 is that it would not have been  within the scope of the Bill as unamended, but that, if amended by my right hon. and learned Friend’s amendments, new clause 14 would probably be brought into scope? Secondly, does he agree that their lordships in the other place take a rather wider view of scope than is typically taken here, and therefore there is ample reason to suppose that, given the majorities we know to exist in the House of Lords, new clause 14 in some form is actually likely to be added to the package and therefore to be operative?

Dominic Grieve: Yes, I do agree. That is certainly one of the reasons this should go to the other place. I slightly hesitate over the issue of scope, particularly because we have a ruling from Madam Deputy Speaker that I would not seek in any way to impugn. It is perfectly clear ruling with a perfectly understandable base. I say no more about it than that.

Craig Mackinlay: Amendment 17 suggests that a motion be debated in this House and approved. We have seen in the past what we might describe as daisy-chain motions taking root in this place, many under his name and some under the names of others. Is it his intention that we should have a similar daisy-chain amendable motion if such a motion comes back to the House in future under his amendment?

Dominic Grieve: If we are seeking ways to find daisy chains, I can assure my hon. Friend that there are probably other ways in which they might be found. If the House wants do something by resolution, a motion must be tabled. Therefore, either we will get to the point where we never, ever table a motion again—meaning, effectively, that our operation is completely brought to a standstill, which would be a total absurdity—or, I am afraid, he, like everybody else in this House, will have to live with the possibility that people may use a motion to raise matters that they want to raise. Of course, the question of the amendability of a motion, and all that, is not in our hands but those of Mr Speaker.
My hon. Friend brings me back to what worries me, because in what he said there is that little echo of the suggestion that it would all be so much better if this House could just disappear—vaporise—for the next three months so that whatever he thinks should happen is what ought to happen. As I was trying to point out, if we do not meet and debate and moderate each other’s views, we are not a working democracy, and that is what we should at all times strive to be. I commend the amendments to the House.

Gavin Newlands: I rise to offer the SNP’s support for amendments 14 to 17, which stand in the name of the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve). I commend him for tabling these amendments and ensuring that there is a chance to debate this issue.
It is incredible that it has come to this—that this Parliament requires an amendment to legislation on the governance of Northern Ireland to stop the Executive riding roughshod over the democratically elected Chamber. More and more, the UK Government are like a Marx Brothers film, but without the laughs—a parade of wannabe comedians trying their best to recreate Freedonia in their own image, with the biggest joke of all reserved  for when the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson) enters No. 10, perhaps by zipslide. But at least Freedonia was fictitious.
Of course it would be easy for those on the Treasury Bench, now or at some point after the right hon. Gentleman takes his place, to finagle the use of the royal prerogative to prorogue Parliament—that is the benefit of the uncodified, antiquated constitution we have—but there can be no shortcuts to democracy. There can be no running away from the mess the Government have created for themselves and for the country, and no attempt to silence democratically elected Members, no matter how much the Government of the day wish to do so. I wholeheartedly agree with the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield, who said:
“If you decide that parliament is an inconvenience, when in fact it is the place where democratic legitimacy lies in our constitution, and therefore it’s acceptable to get rid of it for a period because it might otherwise”
stop
“you from doing something that parliament would prevent, then it’s the end of democracy.”

Martin Docherty: The right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) has raised the issue of proroguing Parliament being unconstitutional, but is not the reality that it is very constitutional, as a rule of the present United Kingdom of Great Britain’s unwritten constitution, and that it was aped in Canada twice?

Gavin Newlands: My hon. Friend, as per usual, makes a very good point. Obviously, we in the SNP support a written constitution, and when Scotland secures its independence, that is the route we will be taking.
The very act of asking the Crown to prorogue Parliament would involve the constitutional monarch in a profoundly political question. Given the fact that a majority of MPs have expressed opposition to the prospect of the UK leaving without a deal, the prorogation of Parliament to get a no-deal Brexit through would be unconstitutional, undemocratic and entirely untenable. We cannot have the no-deal clock being artificially run down by the Executive while Parliament is ordered to extend its holiday. The catastrophic impact of no deal on Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK cannot be allowed to happen. For those reasons, we will support the amendments tabled by the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield.
I said last night that we on the SNP Benches are not blind to the situation in Northern Ireland, and accordingly we operated a free vote on matters of conscience contained in new clauses 1 and 10. I would like to add, however, that we still hold the principle of devolution very dearly. There are many of us in this place who followed that deeply held belief in the devolution principle by abstaining on this legislation who fully support equal marriage and, equally, many who support the right of women in Northern Ireland to safely access abortion in their own country. I would not want anyone in this place or watching at home to think that abstention in this case is opposition—it is not.
To conclude, I congratulate the hon. Member for St Helens North (Conor McGinn) on securing potential  equal marriage rights for LGBTQ couples in Northern Ireland. That is a very welcome development, and he has done extremely well.

Julian Lewis: I rise to speak in support of amendment 6, which stands in my name and the names of my right hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Sir Michael Fallon), my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Johnny Mercer) and 16 other Members. It relates to a topic that, by sheer coincidence, I was addressing the Chamber about on 9 July exactly 12 months ago to this day. That topic is the need for protection for our service personnel against repeated reinvestigation of alleged offences committed during the troubles, even though those have in many cases been previously investigated and there is little or no prospect of significant new evidence being forthcoming.
The amendment speaks for itself. It suggests that there should be
“a report on progress made towards protecting veterans of the Armed Forces and other security personnel from repeated investigation for Troubles-related incidents by introducing a presumption of non-prosecution, in the absence of compelling new evidence, whether in the form of a Qualified Statute of Limitations or by some other legal mechanism.”
It is very important to note that the word “amnesty” does not feature in the amendment. I was particularly pleased when, in another debate on this subject on 20 May this year, my hon. Friend, as I choose to describe him, the Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson), who is an authority on these matters, intervened to make the point strongly that what the Defence Committee has in mind—namely, a qualified statute of limitations—is not an amnesty in any way, shape or form.

Gavin Robinson: indicated assent.

Julian Lewis: I am glad to see him nodding.

Sylvia Hermon: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Julian Lewis: Of course I give way to the hon. Lady, just as I did 12 months ago to this day.

Sylvia Hermon: I am very grateful. Since the right hon. Gentleman’s amendment makes reference to “other security personnel”, will he confirm whether he and his colleagues have taken the view of the Northern Ireland Retired Police Officers Association, and will he elaborate on their opposition to any such amnesty or statute of limitations? That would be enlightening for the Committee.

Julian Lewis: I am afraid that we have got into a situation where people in Northern Ireland have become, to some extent, a prisoner of their own rhetoric. As I understand it, there is opposition to what people imagine is being proposed on the basis that it draws some form of moral equivalence between the forces of law and order and those people who went out, illegally armed, to commit terrorist offences. It does nothing of the sort. The only equivalence that anyone can or should read into such measures is the basic equivalence before the law that applies to everyone.
I have made this point before, and I am afraid that I am going to keep making it until one day more people  accept it: already, in the form of the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998, such equivalence is quite clear. What that Act provides for is that if somebody has been convicted of not just one grave offence but even multiple murders, they might well be given a life sentence, but under that legislation no one will ever serve more than two years of that life sentence in jail. That has sometimes been thought to be something that applied to paramilitaries and terrorists but not to the armed forces, but in repeated debates on this subject it has been established very clearly and unambiguously in ministerial statements from the Front Bench that it applies to everyone. That does not create moral equivalence between the people it applies to; it simply creates the same equivalence before the law that applies to every British citizen, whether virtuous or villainous.

Emma Little Pengelly: We have just had the conclusions of the legacy consultation and the release of a summary of the findings. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that part of the confusion on a statute of limitations is that, due to the narrative around this, people do believe that this is an amnesty, but in fact it talks about limiting some circumstances, on the basis of fairness, which is very different from the principle of amnesty?

Julian Lewis: I am so grateful to the hon. Lady, and delighted that I gave way to her, because she has put that far better than I could.
What we are trying to come to here is a reasonable conclusion that would mean that, should compelling new evidence emerge—something that was overlooked and has now come to the fore, and that puts a completely different complexion on an allegation of a serious crime—indeed that would still be pursued, but where matters had been looked at previously, and where there was no compelling new evidence, a line should be drawn.
There is one more element that comes into this, which is the question whether such a qualified statute of limitations would conform to international law.

Bob Seely: I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way, and I congratulate him and others on tabling the amendment. There are two issues here for me. First, on the point of fairness and equality, does he agree that it is deeply unfair that the state seems to be actively looking not to bring former terrorists to justice while actively looking to bring soldiers, who were there legally doing their job under the law, and protected by the law, to justice. Secondly—I talk to ex-service friends about this often—is he aware of the appalling signal it sends that the soldiers who were doing their job are not being protected by the law, either recently in Iraq or 20 or 30 years ago in Northern Ireland?

Julian Lewis: I thank my hon. Friend, who is an expert in these matters, for that perceptive observation. Certainly, on the differentiation between people who were lawfully armed, trying to preserve the peace and the good order of society, and those who went out unlawfully to try to disrupt that, I believe that my right hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks will address that very point in some depth, because it goes to the heart of his amendment.

Sylvia Hermon: rose—

Julian Lewis: I will give way only one more time, as other Members wish to speak.

Sylvia Hermon: I am exceedingly grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, who is being very generous indeed. I think that it would be very helpful if he, and indeed his colleagues, clarified how many members of the British Army have been investigated, re-investigated and prosecuted in Northern Ireland. I think the numbers would be very instructive and interesting.

Julian Lewis: I am not an expert on the subject, but I think that the numbers at the moment are very low, but the threat—the sword of Damocles—is hanging over a very large number of people.
That leads me rather neatly to the final point that I want to make, about conformity with international law, which does not require a prosecution but does require an investigation. That is why the Select Committee on Defence—we have a further report coming out that relates not just to Northern Ireland, but to the wider context of other campaigns—has always sought to combine the notion of a qualified statute of limitations with that of a truth recovery process. What might loosely be termed the Nelson Mandela solution means that we would satisfy the requirement for an investigation but remove the sword of Damocles hanging over someone’s head, because they would know that they would be required to say what they remembered of the events concerned, with an absolute assurance that no prosecutions would result. That would give the bereaved families the best chance of finding out the truth.

James Heappey: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Julian Lewis: Very well, for the last time.

James Heappey: My right hon. Friend is very kind. I instinctively agree with the amendment that he has tabled. I am concerned about a statute of limitation, because if case law were applied would the other side not claim access to the statute of limitation as well? I would be grateful for his thoughts on that.

Julian Lewis: I thought that by implication I had covered that point. The likelihood is that anyone before the law would be able to lay claim to the statute, but the reality is that what my hon. Friend calls the other side—with their letters of comfort, among other things—are the last people who need to be worried about the present situation. We must not get hung up on the terminology. The people we have to protect are those where the records exist, but to whom letters of comfort have not been given—our armed forces veterans.
In conclusion, I want to—

David Simpson: rose—

Julian Lewis: How can I refuse the hon. Gentleman?

David Simpson: The right hon. Gentleman has made a good point about the letters of comfort. I have to say that the letters of comfort were given to republicans, but those who put on the uniform of the Crown forces are being pursued for doing their duty.

Julian Lewis: That confirms the very point that I was making, and it is why the main purpose of the amendment, although arguably it might be cited by people who are unlikely to be prosecuted, is to protect our service personnel, security forces and so on.
I would like to end—I really will end—by saying that I was encouraged in a debate in Westminster Hall on 20 May this year by the response of the Minister of State to points of the sort that I have made today. He said that I had
“mentioned the Nelson Mandela approach; I will come back to that point, because it is central to any potential action and solution”.
He said that a solution
“must allow not only the victims and the veterans, but the whole society in Northern Ireland, to draw a line.”
He said:
“There is not an exact comparison between Northern Ireland, which is a unique place, and South Africa, but there are many parallels. We must find some way of creating an approach that will allow people to get closure, truth and justice.”—[Official Report, 20 May 2019; Vol. 660, c. 248-250.]
That is what my amendment seeks to do, and I look forward to the Minister’s response.

Nigel Dodds: I want to speak to the amendments tabled in my name and those of my right hon. and hon. Friends, and by Government Members, in relation to the military or armed forces covenant and its application across the United Kingdom, and on the definition of victims, again on a UK-wide basis. In amendment 19, we refer to the Victims and Survivors (Northern Ireland) Order 2006, but we believe that we need a definition of victims on a UK-wide basis.
On the armed forces covenant, our amendment 18 calls for the Secretary of State to publish a report
“on progress made towards preparing legislation confirming the application of the Armed Forces Covenant in the provision of public services in Northern Ireland.”
This is important because, at the moment, despite the great service of so many in Northern Ireland in the armed forces of the United Kingdom over many decades, which has been recognised far and wide, and the dedication of Northern Ireland men and women in the services—and there are, therefore, many veterans—there is not the same application of the military covenant in Northern Ireland as there is elsewhere in the United Kingdom. We have of course talked about this issue in relation to the confidence and supply arrangements, and I look forward to the Minister saying something when he winds up about how we might progress this.
To give an illustration of just how difficult things are, just the other day—on 28 June—the Chairman of the Defence Committee, the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis), received a letter from the head of the Northern Ireland civil service, David Sterling, in which he replied to a previous letter asking about representation from the Northern Ireland Administration on the ministerial covenant and Veterans Board. The head of the civil service said that, unless and until there is an agreed position on participation by the Northern Ireland Executive, he was not in a position to attend or even to send another representative. This is how appalling the situation is: we cannot even have Northern Ireland represented.
Even if the Executive were back, there is no doubt that Sinn Féin would block the covenant’s application in Northern Ireland across a host of services and a host of Departments, as it has done. Of course, as we know, the armed forces covenant is not about giving preferential treatment to veterans; it is about making sure that they do not lose out as a result of their service. By any stretch of morality and law, that should apply in Northern Ireland, as it does elsewhere in the United Kingdom.
We are looking for the Government to report on progress on that matter, and to ensure there is a legislative underpinning of the military covenant. Indeed, I notice today the campaign—I think it was in The Sun newspaper —for legislative underpinning of the military covenant. Indeed, I think I am right in saying that both the leadership contenders—certainly one—have signed up to it. I warmly welcome that, and we will certainly be sitting down to discuss, as part of the renewal of the confidence and supply arrangements, how we can actually move these things forward in detail.
The other amendment that I want to speak to very quickly is amendment 19 on the definition of a victim. I referred to this when debating the previous batch of amendments. The current problem in Northern Ireland is that the definition of victim applies equally to those who have been injured as a result of their own actions and in perpetrating terrorist atrocities. For instance, the Shankill bomber, who was injured—his co-terrorist was killed in a bomb explosion that killed many innocent people—is entitled, under the law as it currently stands, to be classified as a victim, and therefore eligible, under the proposals brought forward, for a victim’s pension. Innocent victims—those who were injured as a result of terrorist activities and the families of those who have been left bereaved—of course find that extremely agonising, and they want this appalling situation rectified. Our amendment asks the Government to bring forward a report on seeking to address this very pressing issue.

Richard Benyon: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with me that this is part of an attempt at historical revisionism that is going on in the Province, and that at this really important moment we need to send a very clear message that this is not some game to satisfy one side or the other, but about fairness, decency and reflecting the truth about what happened?

Nigel Dodds: The right hon. Gentleman has put the matter extremely eloquently and concisely, and he is absolutely right. We are bringing forward a simple request to plead for justice, decency and fairness. It cannot be right that innocent victims are left without a pension because victims of their own terrorist actions may benefit as well.
We have to address, therefore, the issues of the military covenant and the treatment of our veterans, of our victims, and of our armed forces personnel, which the right hon. Member for New Forest East raised so well previously. These issues must be addressed; and if they are not addressed by this Government in their last two years, certainly they must be tackled, going forward. Justice demands it.

Emma Little Pengelly: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is deeply frustrating that we have made  these arguments time and again and yet they have been rebuffed by the Government and others as too controversial? All we are trying to do is something very basic indeed—to put into law the dictionary definition of a victim. A victim is a victim of an act by another person. That is a dictionary definition; that should not be controversial.

Nigel Dodds: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend, and I pay tribute to the work that she has done in this area over many years in Northern Ireland, grappling with those issues. It is frustrating that at times—I have to say this—certainly in the Northern Ireland Office, there has been a well of opposition that has served to obstruct these issues going forward. I do not speak about the current occupants of ministerial office; I am talking about a long record of institutionalised opposition to progressing some of these issues. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say, and I hope that, as a result of this debate, we will finally get movement on these important areas of justice and fairness for victims, our armed forces and our veterans.

Michael Fallon: I hope that the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Nigel Dodds) will forgive me if I do not address his amendments directly. I thoroughly support them and hope that he feels encouraged after tonight to continue to pursue them when it comes to any further negotiation that may take place later in the year.
I shall speak to amendment 7, which stands in my name and that of my hon. Friends, although I should make it clear, as I think my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) did, that I fully endorse amendment 6 as well, both in respect of preventing the re-investigation of cases—sometimes more than once—and his suggestion that a time limit should be considered, rather than an amnesty.
My amendment is narrower in its focus. It is designed to encourage the Secretary of State and the judicial authorities in Northern Ireland to focus on the difference between the soldier and the terrorist—the soldier, who had a duty to the state, who had a duty to protect life and property; and the terrorist, who went out to kill or to maim. That difference, which we discussed in the Chamber a year ago and have already begun to discuss again tonight, seems to have been forgotten, swamped by a kind of moral equivalence. In my view, the distinction should be clear: armed troops are not civilians. They have a duty to the state. They must obey the chain of command. They are issued with lawful weapons. They are trained how to use lawful weapons, and indeed they are punished if they are found to be misusing them. They do not, unlike the terrorist, set out each morning with the intent to kill. The terrorist, by contrast, has at some point acquired an unlawful weapon—an illegal gun or a bomb—and would be doing that only if he or she intended to do harm with it.
In recognising the problem, which has been alluded to, of the convention on human rights and the difficulty of treating one group separately from another, I would like the authorities in Northern Ireland, and in particular the Attorney General for Northern Ireland, to think more deeply in approaching this issue about the presumption of intent. I would like the report we are asking for in this amendment to consider future prosecution  guidance that would properly take into account whether or not a lethal weapon was involved and whether or not it had been legally authorised or acquired. It is a narrow amendment, but I think it would help the authorities to pursue this matter more clearly.

Hilary Benn: I rise very briefly to support the amendments moved by the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve), although I have to say I find it extraordinary that we are even having a debate about Prorogation. I hope that the very idea of proroguing Parliament to deny Members of this House the chance to express a view about the Brexit process at the vital moment—whichever side of the debate one is on, it will have enormous implications for the future of our country—will seem to many so outrageous, so underhand and so shocking. I cannot really understand why any Member, when presented with the proposition, would not say, “Well, that is completely out of the question.” It is a direct threat to our ability to have our say and to express our views.
The second point I want to make is that, if the new Prime Minister were to think, “I might be able to get away with it,” and Prorogation were to happen, it is important that he understands—I am confident of this—that there would be many Members of the House who would be determined to sit, meet, debate and express their view anyway. I do not believe that the House of Commons would be silenced in those circumstances. It would profit the Prime Minister nothing if he were to attempt to do that. I hope the idea will disappear into the dustbin of history where it belongs. If we do not succeed in putting the idea there by persuading the new Prime Minister finally to come forward and say, “Okay, I will never do that in any circumstances,” then voting for the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s amendments tonight will be a very important step in helping it on its way.

Tony Lloyd: Let me begin by addressing the issues raised by the right hon. Members for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) and for Sevenoaks (Sir Michael Fallon). We will return to this theme, so they will forgive me if my response today may be more truncated than I would prefer if there were more time. There can never be a question of moral equivalence between a member of our armed forces and somebody engaged in terrorism on behalf of a paramilitary organisation. We need to make that very clear. Whatever our disagreements, the agreement over the lack of moral equivalence is absolute and we should not be drawn down that track. That said, I am extremely uneasy about the approach taken by both right hon. Members.
The right hon. Member for New Forest East referred to our international commitments. One of our commitments is as a state party to the International Criminal Court and the treaties thereof. Article 29 of the Rome statute makes it clear that crimes that fall within the jurisdiction of the Court cannot be subject to a state-imposed statute of limitations. That is an absolute condition of the Rome statute. The right hon. Gentleman looks puzzled. I invite him to check that.

Julian Lewis: I am not a lawyer, but my understanding is that the ICC, having been set up long after the  troubles, does not have retrospective application, even if the hon. Gentleman’s interpretation of the law is correct.

Tony Lloyd: I did not necessarily automatically assume that the right hon. Gentleman was looking for retrospective legislation. That is an interesting point. The reality, however, is that for this state to now adopt retrospectively something that is imposed would be in contravention of article 29 of that statute.
I pray in aid the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon), who made a point about the role of the police. The role of the police and of the armed forces is very similar. George Hamilton, the outgoing chief constable of the PSNI, has made it clear that he does not believe in any form of statute of limitations. He said:
“There cannot be different rules for different citizens.”
That is a fundamental challenge. The Police Federation for Northern Ireland made the point that it would be an insult to police officers who were killed or injured on duty. This is the real point: in the end, we ask our armed forces to sign an oath to uphold the Queen and Her Majesty’s laws—except for the Royal Navy, ironically, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound), who served in the Royal Navy, knows. We are talking not about the massive and overwhelming majority who serve faithfully in our armed forces, but about the small minority who transgress the law.
The right hon. Member for Sevenoaks drew a distinction between terrorists and those who are lawfully armed, but those who are lawfully armed and misuse those arms do not deserve any protection. I say to the right hon. Gentleman and the right hon. Member for New Forest East that I am not minded to support their amendment, but we will continue to debate this.
The right hon. Member for Belfast North (Nigel Dodds) raised an interesting question about the definition of victims, but it is probably too difficult to debate the whole point today. When I have spoken to victims of terrorism—for example, those in organisations such as WAVE—they have made it clear to me that they want to move on. They believe that, after this amount of time, pragmatism says, “Let’s get on and ensure that those who have been denied those pensions now receive them.” I have a lot of sympathy for that view. They have waited a long time for some form of recognition.

Emma Little Pengelly: The shadow Secretary of State started by saying that there cannot be moral equivalence between the perpetrators of terrorism and our armed forces. Will he take the opportunity to say, just as clearly, that there should never be moral equivalence between the innocent victims of the criminal acts of another, and people who went out to kill and murder, and ended up accidentally injuring or killing themselves? There cannot be moral equivalence between those two.

Tony Lloyd: I have no difficulty in agreeing with the hon. Lady. The Victims’ Commissioner has sought not to change the definition of victim, which was fixed in 2006, because she also wants to move on. I am sure we will return to that.
On the armed forces covenant, I have considerable sympathy with the arguments made by the right hon. Member for Belfast North. We need to see what a report can bring forward and how far that can be of use without causing other problems.
I must refer to the important amendments in the name of the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve), which go to the heart of our role as parliamentarians. Parliament can never abrogate its responsibilities and pass them to an Executive, or even to a new Prime Minister appointed by as many as 160,000 of our fellow citizens. That is unconscionable. We must insist that Parliament continues to sit.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman was right to say that nowhere would be as badly affected as Northern Ireland by a no-deal Brexit. I think he said that was “arguable”; it is actually unarguable. It would be catastrophic for security and the economy, and in its capacity to induce terrorism, as well as for the important question of identity. For many reasons, Northern Ireland needs us to prevent a crash-out Brexit. We had that debate yesterday, and I can think of few organisations in Northern Ireland that would disagree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman that we cannot afford a no-deal Brexit. The Northern Ireland national farmers union, the CBI, Manufacturing Northern Ireland and the Irish Congress of Trade Unions are all of the view that it would be disastrous. Parliament must be here to protect the people of Northern Ireland, to debate their future, and, in particular, to say that if this House of ours chooses to vote for a no-deal Brexit, it will have made a conscious choice. What we cannot allow is the House to be offered no choice at all, and the people of Northern Ireland to be held hostage to the ideologies of those who do not serve their interests.

Johnny Mercer: I ask the hon. Member for Rochdale (Tony Lloyd)—my hon. Friend—to think very carefully about the message that will come from this place tonight if he, in his rightful place as Opposition spokesman, concludes that he cannot support, and indeed, must vote against, some of the amendments tabled in my name and that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Sir Michael Fallon).
These issues are incredibly complex, and no one has suggested that they are not, but I ask my hon. Friend to think about the human element of what is going on. I ask him to think about the reality, rather than the legal methods that could theoretically be applied to people who have abused the system: the reality for hundreds of people in this country. Many are in their 70s and 80s, and some are in their 90s. Some will have dementia, and will have no idea what is going on around them. These are people whose families are trying to support them through this process and who, having simply signed up and served their country, have been caught up in a legal system that has totally failed them. We in this place can come up with plenty of calculations to justify not doing something about this, but it will only ever change—at some point—if we show a bit of courage, the sort of courage that they showed on operations on our behalf, and make clear whose side we are on.
No one has seriously suggested any equivalence, although it has been bandied about, between someone who woke up in Northern Ireland in the 1970s or 1980s and whose objective on that day was to take life, to take innocent life, and those young men and women—and they were young men and women, aged 17, 18, 19 or 20—who were asked to serve in a country that they did not want to go to and had never been to before, and to take part  in an operation that they did not really believe in, and who ended up being involved in an incident over which they had very little control. There is no equivalence between those two scenarios, but the fact is that the first group have peace of mind and are leading their elderly lives in peace, while the second group are currently receiving letters asking them to contribute to the costs of very aggressive lawyers and the very aggressive inquests that are currently taking place in Northern Ireland.

Sammy Wilson: Is it not even more grotesque that these former soldiers can be summoned to an inquest or some legal process and receive no legal back-up from the Army, while those who are initiating cases against them can claim legal aid?

Johnny Mercer: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Ministry of Defence, and this country—our nation, our Government—have been woefully slow in supporting individuals who are going through this process. I urge my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale to think very carefully about the message sent by us —whichever party we are in, we ask these individuals to do our bidding on operations—before voting against amendments that do no more than request a report to start the ball rolling towards a place where there are protections for those who have served on operations in this country.
I will bring my hon. Friend back to the human case of just one individual in my constituency who I have raised time and again, and I make no apology for doing so once more. He has been diagnosed with liver cancer and has been charged; he has turned down treatment so he can fight the case and he will be dead before it comes to court. We are saying as a Parliament, “Thank you for your service,” but we do not quite have the courage to get that over the line and actually show whose side we are on by supporting two very basic but ultimately significant amendments tonight.

Gavin Robinson: It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Johnny Mercer), and I hope he and his colleagues the right hon. Members for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) and for Sevenoaks (Sir Michael Fallon) recognise that we will be supportive of their amendments.
I rise to speak to amendment 18. I will not refer to amendment 19; I have signed it so we can take as read that it has my support. Amendment 18 requires a report to be brought forward about the implementation of the armed forces covenant in Northern Ireland. Members may remember that I brought forward a private Member’s Bill on 6 February. It was supported by Members of Parliament right across the Chamber and from right across the country, all of whom accept that the armed forces covenant is a national commitment to those who served us. It does not respect devolution; it does not respect borders. It was our way as a nation of saying the service that individuals have given and the sacrifice they themselves have made, and their families in support of them, is worthy of recognition. As has been outlined by my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast North (Nigel Dodds), it does not offer preferential treatment, but it ensures that those who served our country so well  do not suffer any disadvantage: they are not precluded from accessing services because they have to move around, for example, or they do not lose out in their children’s applications to schools because they were not living within the catchment area at the time of application.
It is fundamentally wrong, fundamentally immoral, fundamentally unacceptable that the armed forces covenant does not apply equally in Northern Ireland. If every Member of this House accepts that to be the case, it is incumbent upon us all to support this Government bringing forward legislation that will ensure no Minister in a Northern Ireland Executive has the opportunity or is given the freedom to abide by their political prejudice and frustrate the implementation of the armed forces covenant in Northern Ireland.

Emma Little Pengelly: Does my hon. Friend agree that this provides a really good opportunity for the British Government to say very clearly to British soldiers from Northern Ireland that they are as valued as British soldiers from any other part of this United Kingdom, and whether or not they get help should not rely on the whims, the bigotry and the hatred of a particular Minister from Sinn Féin in the relevant Department denying the rights and support that those soldiers need?

Gavin Robinson: I agree absolutely, and Members who have followed my contributions on this issue over the past number of years will recall time and again that I have shared correspondence that was sent from Michelle O’Neill, the then Health Minister, on 15 December 2016, when she indicated, “I am sorry, the armed forces covenant does not apply here.” She is wrong, but for as long as we refuse to take action, she is allowed to get away with her prejudice infecting the virtue of the armed forces covenant. It is not right.
Time and again, we have had updates in this Chamber and through the Defence Committee, on which it is a privilege to serve, where we hear in armed forces implementation reports that everything is great and that each of the eleven councils in Northern Ireland has an armed forces champion. Yet nobody ever then seeks to realise that our councils in Northern Ireland have no responsibility for health, for social services, for housing or for education. Indeed, in all the operative Departments where there is a meaningful a role to play and a meaningful gift to give to those who have served us so well, that responsibility falls to the Northern Ireland Executive. How bizarre!
My right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast North has relayed to the Chamber the fact that the head of the civil service said in a letter that he was sorry he could not attend the Veterans Board, because it was not previously agreed by the Executive. We are discussing an amendment to the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation) Bill that says that if it is in the public interest, senior departmental officials can take decisions, yet Northern Ireland is left with a representative from the Northern Ireland Office, which has no ministerial responsibility for or operational involvement in our health, education, social services or schools—none—yet we rely on the Northern Ireland Office when we are discussing a Bill that gives a senior departmental official the ability to decide to attend. I think that that is clearly in the public interest.

Mark Francois: I thank my fellow member of the Defence Committee for  giving way. Like him, I believe that it is a particular privilege to serve on that Committee. Can he confirm that the decision by the permanent under-secretary at the NIO not to attend the Veterans Board was discussed at our Committee only today and that, to put it mildly, we took a rather dim view of his view?

Gavin Robinson: That is indeed correct. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his intervention, although it was not the permanent under-secretary at the Northern Ireland Office but the head of the civil service in Northern Ireland. Where the issue arises, the Northern Ireland Office does attend, but it has no involvement in the issues that matter most.
I want to put on record my disappointment yet again with the contribution from the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Rochdale (Tony Lloyd). When considering amendment 19, he accepted that there was no moral equivalence between a terrorist and a victim, but when faced with an amendment that he could support this evening, rather than saying, “I accept there is no moral equivalence and therefore I am going to do something about it,” what was his response? He said that the victims wanted to “move on”. I think there is an opportunity for the shadow Secretary of State to reflect on that, given the comments that were made yesterday in this Chamber about the partisan nature of amendments that were considered in the earlier debate. Given Labour Members’ previous commitment always to play a constructive role when dealing with sensitive issues in Northern Ireland, they have doubled down this evening. That is hugely regrettable, and it is worthy of consideration and further reflection.

Jeffrey M. Donaldson: I just want to add to the point that my hon. Friend is making. We have heard a lot from Opposition Front Benchers today about rights and about the need to ensure that Northern Ireland citizens are treated the same as citizens in the rest of the UK when it comes to rights, yet surely we in this House all agree that veterans of our armed forces have the right not to be disadvantaged by virtue of their service. Opposition Front Benchers are not prepared to do anything to address the fact that veterans in Northern Ireland are disadvantaged by virtue of their service. They have to go to the end of the queue when they leave service, and that is not right. That is not what the military covenant says, and the Opposition should reflect on that and do something about the rights of veterans in Northern Ireland.

Gavin Robinson: I agree with my right hon. Friend, although in fairness, the comments that we were talking about attached to the amendment on victims definition, and the shadow Secretary of State did indeed indicate that he would look at the report brought forward by the Government. But time moves on, and this is not a new issue. Today and yesterday, we have talked about the implementation of rights, and if something is right for armed forces personnel and veterans who live in Rochdale, it should be right for those who live in East Belfast and across Northern Ireland. I am grateful for the time that you have allowed, Dame Rosie, and I will now take my seat.

Fiona Bruce: I rise briefly to speak to amendments 21 and 22, which are in my name. In relation to the report under clause 3(1), amendment 21 would place a duty on the Secretary of State to report on the law relating to  gambling and on support for those experiencing problem gambling. Amendment 22, similarly, would place a duty on the Secretary of State to report on the assistance and support offered to victims of human trafficking in Northern Ireland.

John Penrose: I should probably start by formally begging to move that clauses 1 to 4 stand part of the Bill. If I do not say that, bad things will probably happen and we will not get to the important part of our proceedings.
I begin with the four amendments tabled by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve), which would require the first progress report under clause 3 to be made on 4 September, not 21 October. As he mentioned, fortnightly reports would then be required from 9 October until 18 December if an Executive had not been formed. Any report under clause 3 or any regulations under clause 2 would be subject to an approval motion in this House and a “take note” motion at the other end of the corridor.
The Government agree that Parliament must be kept closely informed of progress towards restoring an Executive in Northern Ireland, which is precisely what clause 3 provides for, and we are willing to consider or accept various other reporting obligations, as I made clear in response to the earlier group of amendments. I continue that good will and positive approach under this second group of amendments.
Given the fundamental importance of these issues, I am happy to confirm that we accept my right hon. and learned Friend’s amendment 14, on the progress report to Parliament on or before 4 September. However, I have to disagree with him and oppose his other amendments.
The requirement for regular fortnightly reporting throughout the autumn, subject to a vote on each occasion, would simply be an excessive and unnecessary procedure. I also note that the requirement for fortnightly reports and motions would attach to many of the other reporting obligations on different topics that hon. and right hon. Members seek to add to clause 3. The amount of parliamentary time we booked up throughout September and into the autumn, should the Executive in Stormont not have been created, would start to mount.
I appreciate that what lies behind my right hon. and learned Friend’s amendments is not solely a concern to keep abreast of the progress towards restoring the devolved Government in Northern Ireland. He is very clear that his interests are a great deal broader and are primarily motivated by concerns about Brexit. We happily accept amendment 14, but, for the reasons I have laid out, I hope he will understand that we are not minded to accept his other three amendments, which I hope he will not press after he has had a chance to consider my remarks.
I thank my right hon. Friends the Members for Sevenoaks (Sir Michael Fallon) and for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) for tabling amendments 6 and 7 on veterans. There is broad agreement, after a couple of urgent questions and a couple of debates in Westminster Hall and in the House over the past month, that the current legacy system is not working well for pretty much anyone. The system has to change, and it has to  provide better outcomes. The system has to ensure that everyone is treated fairly, particularly the armed forces and police officers.
The draft Bill on which we consulted last year would require a new body investigating legacy cases to do so in a fair, balanced and proportionate manner. We have just finished consulting, and we have published the responses in the past week. Interestingly, there were strong and widespread views against either an amnesty or immunity from prosecution, and both my right hon. Friends were keen, and rightly so, to make clear the difference between those two proposals and the ideas proposed in their amendments.
There is widespread concern about former soldiers being pursued by vexatious and unfair court cases 40 or 50 years after they finish serving. Amendments 6 and 7 would require the Secretary of State to report on progress towards introducing a presumption of non-prosecution, and they would require the Attorney General for Northern Ireland to produce guidance on legacy cases with a presumption in favour of prosecution in cases where a weapon had been unlawfully obtained. That is a worthy attempt to make a distinction and to unravel the tendency in some cases for people to try to create moral equivalence between terrorists and Her Majesty’s armed forces.
It is important to be clear that the specifics of the particular or associated issues that are being proposed here did not form part of the Stormont House agreement. They were not recommended or supported widely in the responses to the consultation either. There are also some other technical concerns about whether the UK Government can direct the Attorney General for Northern Ireland—I think that is problematic. In principle, however, the point is this: I intend to take the two amendments in the spirit in which I think they are intended. I think they are intended to be a valid and sincere attempt to move this issue forward.
It is time and past time that a solution was found to this issue. Whether or not the precise details of these specific proposals are approved of in all their details in the report or approved of only in part and other things perhaps brought forward instead is beside the point. The important thing is that these two reports could serve as a way to advance that cause, identify solutions and move this forward. It is overdue that we do so and I am delighted to support the amendments.
I now move on to the points made about the armed forces covenant, which several right hon. and hon. Members, particularly from the Northern Ireland Benches, put eloquently and with great passion. I am dealing here with new clauses 15 and 16, and amendment 18. As we have heard, the armed forces covenant is hardly a new policy and it has always extended, in principle, to Northern Ireland. We continue to need to strengthen the delivery of the covenant in Northern Ireland. We have heard today some concerning and sometimes shocking examples of occasions when it could and should have been applied but had not been. The principle of the covenant was formalised in the Armed Forces Act 2011. In accordance with the Act, the Secretary of State for Defence is legally obliged to publish an annual report, which sets out the key deliverables under the covenant. This report incorporates progress in delivering the covenant across the whole UK, including Northern Ireland. We  also ensure that covenant delivery is kept on track through a number of committees and boards.
Everyone in this House has, as our Government and our Democratic Unionist party confidence and supply partners certainly have, consistently demonstrated a commitment to upholding the principles and universality of the covenant, which is evident in the work reported in each of the annual reports laid in the House. We will continue to report progress to Parliament, we recognise our commitment to our confidence and supply partners to have full implementation of the armed forces covenant across the UK, and we are committed to looking at further legislation if that is required.
Amendment 19 and new clause 18 relate to the definition of a “victim” and stand in the name of the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Nigel Dodds). The definition of a victim is laid down in legislation—the Victims and Survivors (Northern Ireland) Order 2006, which is the responsibility of the Northern Ireland Assembly. As a devolved matter, any change to this definition would need to be agreed with the parties in the Executive and, ultimately, by the Northern Ireland Assembly. The Government recognise that the definition of a victim is something that a number of right hon. and hon. Members have campaigned on for a number of years, and we commit to looking UK-wide at how we can make sure the victims are duly recognised and protected in law. I hope that, with this commitment and the one I made previously, the right hon. Gentleman is willing not to press his amendment.

Emma Little Pengelly: It is important to highlight what I believe is not an accurate description of the legal position. The 2006 order refers only to matters pertaining to the Commissioner for Victims and Survivors in Northern Ireland. There is no general definition of victim, and our argument is that a victim in Northern Ireland is the same as a victim across the UK. Sadly, there are many victims of terrorism across the UK, and this should rightly be a matter for the British Government, to be legislated on here.

John Penrose: I hope that the commitments I have just made and the words I was able to adduce have reassured the right hon. Member for Belfast North and his colleagues, and that on that basis they will be willing not to press their amendments. I think we are in agreement on the issue, but I am sure they will intervene on me if not.
Finally, let me turn to amendments 21 and 22, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) spoke briefly and eloquently late on in our proceedings. The amendments would require reports on gambling and the progress towards looking after gambling addicts, and on people who were victims of human trafficking. On the basis that we have been willing to consider other reports, I am of course willing to respond to that request and to accept the amendments.
I hope we have managed to dispose of the various amendments in reasonably good order, that everybody will treat the Government’s approach to those amendments in as constructive and positive a way as possible, and that we will therefore be able to dispose of the remaining business in Committee easily and straightforwardly. I therefore wish to do something quite unusual for a politician, which is to draw my remarks to a close, stop talking and sit down.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3

Progress report

Amendment made: 14, in clause3,page2,line13,leave out “21 October” and insert “4 September”.—(Mr Grieve.)
This amendment would bring forward the date for a progress report to 4 September 2019.
Amendment proposed: 6, in clause3,page2,line15,at end insert—
“(1A) The report under subsection (1) must include a report on progress made towards protecting veterans of the Armed Forces and other security personnel from repeated investigation for Troubles-related incidents by introducing a presumption of non-prosecution, in the absence of compelling new evidence, whether in the form of a Qualified Statute of Limitations or by some other legal mechanism.”—(Dr Julian Lewis.)
The subsection would include placing a duty on the Secretary of State to report on the options available to ensure that veterans of the Troubles would be able to assist in a truth recovery process, for the benefit of bereaved families, without fear of prosecution.

The Committee divided: Ayes 308, Noes 228.
Question accordingly agreed to.
Amendment 6 agreed to.
Amendment made: 7, in page2,line15,at end insert—
‘(1A) The report under subsection (1) must include a report on progress made towards developing new prosecution guidance for legacy cases of Troubles-related incidents by the Attorney General for Northern Ireland to take into account whether or not the person who allegedly committed an offence had the means to do so because that person had been lawfully supplied with a deadly weapon, with a presumption in favour of prosecuting in cases where a person who has allegedly committed an offence had the means to do so because that person had been unlawfully supplied with a deadly weapon.” —(Sir Michael Fallon.)
The subsection would place a duty on the Secretary to State to report on progress made towards a new prosecution guidance taking into account whether or not the person who allegedly committed an offence had been lawfully armed.
Amendment made: 9, in page2,line15,at end insert—
‘(1A) The report under subsection (1) must include a review of the current legal framework on abortion in Northern Ireland with an analysis of how that framework could be amended by Parliament during the period when there is no Executive, subject to a sunset clause to respect devolution, in order to comply with the human rights obligations of the United Kingdom.” —(Diana Johnson.) [Interruption.]
The subsection would include placing a duty on the Secretary to State to report on the legal framework on abortion in Northern Ireland with an analysis of how that framework could be amended by Parliament during the period when there is no Executive, subject to a sunset clause to respect devolution, in order to comply with the human rights obligations of the United Kingdom.

Eleanor Laing: No, no—we do not clap. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) deserves to be congratulated, but not by clapping.
We now come to amendment 10 to clause 3, to be moved formally. [Interruption.]
The Question is that amendment 10 be made. As many of that opinion say “Aye”. [Interruption.] To the contrary, “No”. [Interruption.] Order. I have to be able to separate the laughter from the cries of “Aye” and “No”.

Patrick McLoughlin: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Did the Member who shouted initially say, “Not moved”?

Eleanor Laing: I understand the point of order made by a long-serving Chief Whip, who understands these matters extremely well, but the hon. Gentleman has the right to change his mind.

Tony Lloyd: For clarification, Madam Deputy Speaker, the amendment is moved formally. [Interruption.]

Eleanor Laing: Order. No, we are having no confusion on this matter. We are starting this matter again. [Interruption.] I would appreciate just a little less noise, because we are debating serious matters here and it is not amusing.
Amendment made: 10, in page2,line15,at end insert—
‘(1A) Before making a report under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must publish a report on or before 4 September 2019 on progress made towards preparing legislation implementing a pension for seriously injured victims and survivors of Troubles-related incidents.” —(Tony Lloyd.)
The subsection would include placing a duty on the Secretary of State to report on the implementation of a pension for seriously injured victims and survivors of Troubles-related incidents.
Amendment made: 12, in page2,line15,at end insert—
‘(1A) Before making a report under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must publish a report on or before 4 September 2019 on progress made towards implementing the recommendations made by the Report of the Inquiry into Historical Institutional Abuse in Northern Ireland between 1922 and 1995, including the establishment of a publicly funded compensation scheme under an HIA Redress Board, distinct from the Northern Ireland Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme 2009.’—(Tony Lloyd.)
The subsection calls for a report on implementing the Report of the Inquiry into Historical Institutional Abuse in Northern Ireland between 1922 and 1995, published in January 2017, which was chaired by Sir Anthony Hart.
Amendment proposed: 15, in page2,line15,at end insert—
‘(1A) The Secretary of State shall make a further report under subsection 1 on or before 9 October 2019 at least every fourteen calendar days thereafter until either an Executive is formed or until 18 December 2019, whichever is the sooner.’—(Mr Grieve.)
This amendment would require fortnightly reports to be made after the conference recess until an Executive was formed, or until the December recess.
Question put, That the amendment be made.

The Committee divided: Ayes 294, Noes 293.
Question accordingly agreed to.
Amendment 15 agreed to.
Amendments made: 18, in page2,line15,at end insert—
“(1A) Before making a report under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must publish a report on or before 4 September 2019 on progress made towards preparing legislation confirming the application of the Armed Forces Covenant in the provision of public services in Northern Ireland.”
The subsection would include placing a duty on the Secretary of State to report on the preparation of legislation confirming the application of the Armed Forces Covenant in Northern Ireland.
Amendment 19, in page2,line15,at end insert—
“(1A) Before making a report under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must publish a report on or before 4 September 2019 on whether the definition of “victim” in Article 3 of the Victims and Survivors (Northern Ireland) Order 2006 (Order No. 2953 (N.I. 17)) should be revised to apply only to a person who is injured or affected wholly through the actions of another person.”
The subsection would include placing a duty on the Secretary of State to report on the definition of “victim” in the Victims and Survivors (Northern Ireland) Order 2006.
Amendment 21, inpage2,line15,at end insert—
“(1A) The report under subsection (1) must include a report to be published on or before 4 September 2019 on progress made in Northern Ireland on—
(a) the law on gaming machines;
(b) the law on online gambling;
(c) the number of people who are seeking treatment for problem gambling;
(d) the services available to people seeking problem gambling; and
(e) the level of support from the gambling industry for problem gambling.”
The subsection would include placing a duty on the Secretary of State to report on various matters related to the law on gambling in Northern Ireland and support for those experiencing problem gambling.
Amendment 22, inpage2,line15,at end insert—
“(1A) The report under subsection (1) must include a report to be published on or before 4 September 2019 on progress on the use of discretionary powers to provide assistance and support under section 18(9) of the Human Trafficking and Exploitation (Criminal Justice and Support for Victims) Act (Northern Ireland) 2015. The report must cover—
(a) how many times the Department has decided it is necessary to provide assistance and support for victims of human trafficking for whom there has been a conclusive determination that the person is a victim of trafficking in human beings;
(b) the reasons the Department has decided it is necessary to provide assistance and support for victims of human trafficking for whom there has been a conclusive determination that the person is a victim of trafficking in human beings; and
(c) the immigration status of those victims of human trafficking for whom there has been a conclusive determination that the person is a victim of trafficking in human beings who are receiving assistance and support beyond the relevant period.”—(Nigel Dodds.)
The subsection would include placing a duty on the Secretary of State to report on the assistance and support offered to victims of human trafficking in Northern Ireland from receiving a conclusive grounds decision.
Amendment proposed: 16, in page2,line16,leave out “the report” and insert
“any report under this section”.—(Mr Grieve.)
This is a consequential amendment.
Question put, That the amendment be made.

The House divided: Ayes 289, Noes 292.
Question accordingly negatived.
Amendment proposed: 17, page2,line16,at end insert—
“(2A) A Minister of the Crown must, within the period of two sitting days beginning with the day on which a report under this section is published, make arrangements for—
(a) a motion to the effect that the House of Commons has approved that report to be moved in that House by a Minister of the Crown within the period of three Commons sitting days beginning with the day on which the report under this section is published, and
(b) a motion for the House of Lords to take note of the report mentioned in paragraph (a) to be moved in that House by a Minister of the Crown within the period of three Lords sitting days beginning with the day on which the relevant report mentioned in section 3 is published.
(2B) In this section—
“Commons sitting day” means a day on which the House of Commons is sitting (and a day is only a day on which the House of Commons is sitting if the House begins to sit on that day);
“Lords sitting day” means a day on which the House of Lords is sitting (and a day is only a day on which the House of Lords is sitting if the House begins to sit on that day).”—[Mr Grieve.]
This amendment would require progress reports to be debated.
Question put, That the amendment be made.

The Committee divided: Ayes 289, Noes 293.
Question accordingly negatived.
Clause 3, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause 20

Law on gambling and support for those experiencing problem gambling in Northern Ireland: debate

“(1) A Minister of the Crown must, within the period of two sitting days beginning with the first sitting day on or after the day on which the report on gambling in Northern Ireland mentioned in section 3 is published, make arrangements for—
(a) a motion to the effect that the House of Commons has approved that report to be moved in that House by a Minister of the Crown within the period of seven Commons sitting days beginning with the day on which the relevant report mentioned in section 3 is published, and
(b) a motion for the House of Lords to take note of the report mentioned in paragraph (a) to be moved in that House by a Minister of the Crown within the period of seven Lords sitting days beginning with the day on which the relevant report mentioned in section 3 is published.
(2) In this section—
“Commons sitting day” means a day on which the House of Commons is sitting (and a day is only a day on which the House of Commons is sitting if the House begins to sit on that day);
“Lords sitting day” means a day on which the House of Lords is sitting (and a day is only a day on which the House of Lords is sitting if the House begins to sit on that day).”—(Fiona Bruce.)
This new clause is linked to the amendment 21 on a report on progress made on the law on gambling in Northern Ireland and support for problem gambling, and provides for the report to be debated in Parliament.
Brought up, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 21

Assistance and support for victims of human trafficking in Northern Ireland: debate

“(1) A Minister of the Crown must, within the period of two sitting days beginning with the first sitting day on or after the day on which the report on assistance and support for victims of human trafficking in Northern Ireland mentioned in section 3 is published, make arrangements for—
(a) a motion to the effect that the House of Commons has approved that report to be moved in that House by a Minister of the Crown within the period of seven Commons sitting days beginning with the day on which the relevant report mentioned in section 3 is published, and
(b) a motion for the House of Lords to take note of the report mentioned in paragraph (a) to be moved in that House by a Minister of the Crown within the period of seven Lords sitting days beginning with the day on which the relevant report mentioned in section 3 is published.
(2) In this section—
“Commons sitting day” means a day on which the House of Commons is sitting (and a day is only a day on which the House of Commons is sitting if the House begins to sit on that day);
“Lords sitting day” means a day on which the House of Lords is sitting (and a day is only a day on which the House of Lords is sitting if the House begins to sit on that day).”—(Fiona Bruce.)
This new clause is linked to the amendment 22 on a report on progress made on the law on gambling in Northern Ireland and support for problem gambling, and provides for the report to be debated in Parliament.
Brought up, and added to the Bill.
The Deputy Speaker resumed the Chair.
Bill, as amended, reported.
Bill, as amended in the Committee, considered.
Question put forthwith (Order, 8 July), That the Bill be now read the Third time.
Question accordingly agreed to.
Bill read the Third time and passed.

PETITION - FIELDS AT WHALEBONES IN BARNET

Theresa Villiers: I rise to present a petition to oppose plans to build over agricultural fields at Whalebones in High Barnet, in my constituency. An e-petition on my website on Whalebones has gained more than 1,250 signatures. The fields derive their name from the two massive jawbones of a blue whale, a local landmark that was erected over the driveway to Whalebones House in in the 1860s. The fields were owned by the late Gwyneth Cowing, a local artist, who was a redoubtable champion for Barnet’s natural environment. They are an oasis of green in the middle of a London suburb. It would be heartbreaking to lose so much of them to development and it would be a great loss to the natural environment in Barnet. We can build the new homes we need without loss of precious green space of this kind. My constituents are appealing to the developers, Hill, and the site owners to cancel their plans to build, so that the fields at Whalebones can be conserved for future generations.
The petition states:
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to urge Hill and the owners of the site, the Executors of the will of the late Gwyneth Cowing, to drop their plans to build at Whalebones.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of Residents of the Chipping Barnet Constituency,
Declares that we the undersigned object to the plans put forward by the developer, Hill, to build around 150 flats and houses on the fields at Whalebones in High Barnet; and further declares that an online petition launched by Theresa Villiers MP on this matter has received over 1250 signatures to date.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to urge Hill and the owners of the site, the Executors of the will of the late Gwyneth Cowing, to drop their plans to build at Whalebones.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P002486]

PETITION - LIZANNE ZIETSMAN, ISLE OF ARRAN

Patricia Gibson: This petition is from the residents of North Ayrshire and Arran, and many others from across the United Kingdom. The residents are deeply concerned by the UK Home Office’s decision to refuse Lizanne Zietsman leave to remain in the UK. They note: that Lizanne has settled on the Island of Arran with her Scottish-born husband, John, and has built a successful business, employing local residents; further that she is a valued, respected and much loved member of the Arran community, which is bewildered, dismayed and genuinely upset that the UK Home Office has rejected her application to stay in the UK; and further that an online petition on this matter has received, at the latest count, more than 16,069 signatures, in just a few days, with the number rising as we speak. It is worth noting that population of Arran stands at about 5,000.
It is extremely disappointing that the Immigration Minister has no time to meet me to discuss this matter further. This decision to force Lizanne to leave the UK by Friday 12 July is cruel and unnecessary, and it robs a rural community of one of its highly esteemed members, to no good purpose or benefit to anyone. It is not done in the name of these 16,069 and counting petitioners. The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Home Office to reconsider this decision without delay and grant Lizanne leave to remain in the UK, so that she can continue to contribute to the Isle of Arran community.
The petition states:
The petition of residents of North Ayrshire and Arran,
Declares that we are deeply concerned by the UK Home Office’s decision to refuse Lizanne Zietsman leave to remain in the UK; further that Lizanne has settled on the Island of Arran with her Scottish-born husband and has built a successful business employing local residents; further that she is a valued and respected member of the Arran community which is bewildered and dismayed that the UK Home Office has rejected her application to stay in the UK; and further that an online petition on this matter has received over 16,069 signatures.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Home Office to grant Lizanne leave to remain in the UK so that she can continue to contribute to the Isle of Arran community.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P002488]

PETITION - HULL PARAGON STATION GATE

Emma Hardy: I am sure that you, Mr Speaker, will share my deep regret over the decision by TransPennine Express to close the gate to Hull Paragon station, which has had   a detrimental impact on the disabled people living in Hull and the surrounding area because the gate is right outside the drop-off point for people who are disabled. We have tried to talk to TransPennine Express to discuss the issue with the gate, but so far it appears to be unmoved, so I am hoping that this petition will move it towards doing the right thing.
The petitioners
“urge the House of Commons to put pressure on the government to work with First TransPennine Express and provide unrestricted access to the only pick-up and drop-off point…at Hull Paragon Station, by leaving the Anlaby Road gate open throughout the day.”
Special thanks go to Tracy Dearing for collecting the signatures.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of Residents of the United Kingdom,
Declares that it is wrong to restrict access to the only pick-up and drop-off point at Hull Paragon Station, by closing the Anlaby Road gates throughout the day; notes that for many disabled people, this is the only accessible route into the station (access to only disabled car parking spaces); further notes that First TransPennine’s suggestion that people should call a mobile number and wait to be admitted will result in (a) disabled people being left vulnerable while waiting to be admitted, (b) longer journey and waiting times and (c) disabled people being treated differently to able bodied people and calls on First TransPennine to provide unrestricted access to this point.
The petitioners therefore urge the House of Commons to put pressure on the government to work with First TransPennine Express and provide unrestricted access to the only pick-up and drop-off point and disabled car parking spaces at Hull Paragon Station, by leaving the Anlaby Road gate open throughout the day.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P002489]

INTENTIONAL UNAUTHORISED DEVELOPMENT

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Iain Stewart.)

Oliver Heald: In my constituency of North East Hertfordshire, there have recently been intentional unauthorised developments of caravan sites on land bought by Travellers. This is becoming more common nationally and has been increasing locally.
It is important that the rule of law is upheld. To local residents who abide by the law, it just seems wrong that planning law can be flouted and treated with disdain. If planning permission is needed, it should be applied for in advance. My constituents are concerned that there should be a level playing field for the planning system. Unauthorised sites are frequently a source of tension between the travelling and settled communities. Although councils have some powers to deal with unauthorised sites, deliberate unauthorised development remains a significant issue.
In July 2018, there were 3,093 caravans on unauthorised sites nationally, of which 2,149 were on land bought by Travellers. The number of caravans on unauthorised sites increased by 17% between July 2017 and July 2018. So, what is going on? In a typical case, it seems that a Traveller will buy land where there would be little or no prospect of someone obtaining planning permission for a home. In my constituency, examples have included land in the green belt and land in a conservation area—I believe that all the sites were ones where planning permission to build a house or to develop a business had previously been refused.
On some occasions, on the Friday evening of a bank holiday a fleet of lorries, caravans and building equipment has arrived on a site, and people have started to lay internal roads and hard standing on the site without planning permission. In some instances, children are brought on to sites. This could be coincidental, or it could be designed to be used in later legal proceedings to demonstrate a family life for Human Rights Act purposes. Where notices are served by the council for enforcement or an injunction, they are ignored. As council enforcement proceeds, with a good deal of development already on site, applications are made for retrospective planning permission.

Jim Shannon: I have a deep interest in planning matters and am perturbed to hear what the right hon. and learned Gentleman has said. Does he agree that the purpose of the planning system is to ensure that there is protection for the environment and neighbourhoods, and that planners need to work with developers or potential developers to find a way forward? If no such way is found, swift and firm action must be taken by local councils and, ultimately, by the judiciary.

Oliver Heald: I accept that point. It seems to me that we are trying to have an orderly planning system on which people can rely as a level playing field, equal for all. If the planning system is not enforced, we end up with a system that can be railroaded, which is in effect what is happening.
As I was saying, as council enforcement proceeds, with a good deal of development already on site, retrospective planning permission is applied for. The process is delayed, with the inevitable inertia of court or planning inquiry proceedings, and the scope for applications for adjournments, so months can pass into years. Perhaps a personal permission is eventually obtained on appeal. Then, I am told, more unauthorised development might take place for a family member here or a living room there. Over a period of years, the initial failure to apply for planning permission has been rewarded with a full caravan site. That might help to explain why the number of caravans on unauthorised sites has increased by 17% in the past year.
If a site is intentionally developed without permission, should it not be put back into the state that it was in before, and then a planning application could be made? Should not the enforcement notices all be followed, and then, from the position of anybody else applying in advance, we should have that proper process.

Paul Beresford: As the Minister is aware, I have had considerable difficulty in my constituency. Some of the sites have been fought over for 14 to 18 years. I have a very aggressive one at the moment. Perhaps the Minister might consider enabling the local authority to put a stop order on any development at all, emphasised and backed by the courts.

Oliver Heald: That is a very constructive proposal and I would be interested to hear how the Minister responds to it. At the moment, if a site is intentionally developed without permission, there does not seem to be much of a disincentive to ignore planning law in the first place. The Government’s planning policies and requirements for Gypsy and Traveller sites are set out in “Planning policy for traveller sites”, which must be taken into consideration in preparing local plans and taking planning decisions. In theory, that encourages local authorities to formulate their own evidence base for Gypsy and Traveller needs and to provide their own targets relating to pitches required, which is a good thing. Where planning authorities are unable to demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable sites, that in turn might make it more difficult for them to justify refusing planning applications for temporary pitches. However, where a council does what is suggested, that does not provide the certainty for the council or the local residents that is intended.
In preparing its local plan, East Hertfordshire District Council undertook a thorough process to establish Traveller needs. That was scrutinised by the planning inspector as part of the public examination of the draft plan and, after due consideration, the plan was approved by the Secretary of State and adopted in November 2018. Yet within weeks, it was being argued successfully on a retrospective planning appeal before another planning inspector that this did not adequately reflect Traveller need in the district because it did not include the appellant, who was not actually living in the district at the time of the council survey a few months earlier. Surely the local plan should have more force than that. There should be a period from adoption of the plan within which it is  not possible to reopen issues such as that of need. The plan should be determinative—at least for a reasonable period.
In a welcome January 2014 written ministerial statement, the Government sought to re-emphasise existing policy that
“unmet need, whether for traveller sites or for conventional housing, is unlikely to outweigh harm to the green belt and other harm to constitute the ‘very special circumstances’ justifying inappropriate development in the green belt.”—[Official Report, 17 January 2014; Vol. 573, c. 35WS.]
I asked the Minister whether that still applied.
In September 2014, the coalition Government published, “Consultation: planning and travellers”. This made intentional occupation of land without planning permission a material consideration in any retrospective planning application for that site. Will the Minister confirm that that remains the case?
The guidance “Dealing with illegal and unauthorised encampments: a summary of available powers” was published in March 2015. Since then, there have been a number of debates in which hon Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford), have highlighted these issues. On 9 October 2017, the then Housing Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Reading West (Alok Sharma), said that the Government expected local authorities and the police to act and announced a review of the effectiveness of enforcement against unauthorised encampments, and made the point that this was not a reason for local authorities and the police not to use their existing powers.
On 12 October that year, the then Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones), reiterated that the law must apply to everyone and agencies should work together to deal with wrongdoing. In April 2018, the Government launched a consultation and published their response in February this year. In it, the Government set out their intentions for further action on unauthorised developments and encampments, including:
“Practical and financial support for local authorities including new good practice guidance and funding for planning enforcement to support local authorities to deal with unauthorised encampments more effectively…Supporting traveller site provision through planning policy and the Affordable Homes Programme…Support for the travelling community to improve life chances”.
Many Gypsies and Travellers now live in settled accommodation—mostly in bricks and mortar—and do not travel, or do not travel all the time, but they do consider travelling part of their identity. The number of Traveller caravans is on the increase. In July 2018, the figure was 22,662—an increase of 29% since July 2008. There are concerns expressed by Select Committees of the House that this is leading to unsatisfactory conditions in unauthorised sites. It is also worth making the point that Travellers have the worst outcomes across a wide range of social indicators, so work to improve their life chances is welcome.
The Government have said that they will consider writing to local authorities that do not have an up-to-date plan for Travellers, to expedite the requirements of national planning policy and highlight examples of good practice. But this may be ineffective if the general view of councils becomes that, even if they prepare a plan and it is approved as part of the local plan by the inspector and the Secretary of State, such a plan  can still be impugned within weeks in a retrospective planning appeal. I understand that the Government intend to publish further consultations on options for strengthening policy on intentional unauthorised development, but action is needed now to uphold the rule of law, provide a level playing field, and remove the stress and tension caused to local communities by intentional unauthorised developments.

Kit Malthouse: I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire (Sir Oliver Heald) on securing this debate. He has been a persistent and formidable champion for his constituents, and has raised this issue with me on a number of occasions. I am pleased that we are now able to address it in the open air.
The Government take unauthorised encampments extremely seriously, and a lot of work is ongoing in this area. Both I and the Secretary of State have listened extensively to views from across the House on this highly important issue, and recognise the strong feelings and concerns that have been raised in recent debates and discussions. As both I and the Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond (Yorks) (Rishi Sunak), have stressed before in this Chamber, the Government are listening and taking action. We have listened to concerns raised in debates, discussions and correspondence, and we have sought evidence on the issue through consultation.
In February this year, we published the Government’s response to the “Powers for dealing with unauthorised developments and encampments” consultation, working with the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice. Since then, ministerial colleagues and officials have been working together closely towards delivering on the commitments made in that response. Among the concerns that have been raised by colleagues in the House and members of the public, there were particular concerns over fairness in the planning system, illegal activity and the wellbeing of travelling communities. Indeed, I can understand the frustration that is felt when it appears that the law does not apply fairly to all. We want to ensure that the system is fair, so we must take into account the concerns being raised—whether those concerns are from the travelling community or members of the settled community. This means ensuring that all members of the community have the same opportunities and are free from the negative effects of those who choose to break the law.
The responses we received to our consultation on unauthorised development highlighted several aspects that we need to improve on in order to address this issue. Our response put forward a package of measures, including consultation on stronger powers for the police to respond to unauthorised encampments, practical and financial support for local authorities to deal with unauthorised encampments, support for Traveller site provision and support for the travelling community to improve their life chances. My colleague the Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond (Yorks), recently provided a summary to the House on some of the work that the Government will be undertaking as a result. For the benefit of everybody here today, I  will briefly reiterate some of these points, with consideration to what has been brought up by my right hon. and learned Friend.
First, let me address the concerns raised by my right hon. and learned Friend about intentional unauthorised development, and, in particular, how this type of development is taken into account when planning permission is sought retrospectively. The Government do want to ensure that fairness and confidence exists in the planning system, and I believe that this can be partly achieved through the strengthening of policy in this area. In 2015, the Government introduced a policy that made intentional unauthorised development a material consideration in the determination of planning applications and appeals. As set out in our response, we are concerned that harm is caused by the development of land that has been undertaken in advance of obtaining planning permission. We will therefore consult on options for strengthening our policy on intentional unauthorised development so that local authorities have the tools to address the effects of such developments. I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will contribute to that consultation.
We know, however, that this is not only about having the necessary policies and regulations in place, but about local authorities having the powers and resources to enforce them. There is already an extensive range of powers in place, as set out in the 2015 guidance, to allow local authorities to clamp down quickly on unauthorised encampments. The Government expect authorities, working with the police as necessary, to use these powers to take swift and effective enforcement action. The responses to our consultation on unauthorised developments and encampments demonstrated that local authorities generally believe that the powers available to them under sections 77 and 78 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 are adequate. Local authorities have extensive planning enforcement powers under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The Government believe that, if used effectively, these are sufficient to tackle unauthorised development and reduce the risk of it occurring.
We note, however, that some local authorities may deal with unauthorised encampments less frequently than others, and the Government have heard that it can be difficult to develop expertise and good practice in all areas. We recognise that resourcing, training and skills are a concern in relation to planning enforcement. That is why we have committed to practical and financial support for local authorities, including new good practice guidance and funding for planning enforcement to support local authorities to deal with unauthorised encampments more effectively.

Paul Beresford: There has recently been a meeting of every single local authority in Surrey. The Chancellor set it up and a number of other MPs went there. They would disagree totally with the Minister that we think that the legislation is adequate. It is inadequate.

Kit Malthouse: I hear my hon. Friend’s view of the legislation, but, as I say, it is not the generally accepted view that came through in the consultation. I am more than happy to take a submission from the local authorities in Surrey if they believe that there are lacunae in their powers that mean they are unable to enforce successfully. However, there are local authorities across the country  that do successfully enforce in this area. I would be more than happy to put his local authorities in touch with those local authorities who are successful in this regard, particularly the one that is always held out as an example—Sandwell in the west midlands, which has a particularly assertive and successful policy in this area, and might, I am sure, be able to offer some tips and tricks on what is available in the armoury of legislation for local authorities to use.
We want to ensure that local authorities use their powers to full effect and, as I say, draw on good practice across the country, at county or district level, in the ways that they can work more effectively with police and neighbouring authorities.

Oliver Heald: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way and for the discussions we have had. However, what about the point that a person who is in breach of an enforcement notice is still able to apply for retrospective planning permission? Surely, he should remedy the breach before he is allowed to do that. What about the point on the local plan where a council goes to the trouble of surveying the need and getting the thing looked at by the planning inspector, it is signed off by his boss and the Secretary of State, and then, two or three weeks or a month later, it is being argued that it does not adequately reflect the need?

Kit Malthouse: On my right hon. and learned Friend’s first point, those are very pertinent issues that should be submitted as part of the consultation on how we can strengthen measures against intentional unauthorised development. I am very focused on this issue. In particular, during the Department’s work, I was keen that we should enforce against that, because I agree that people need to have confidence in the planning system and know that there is a level playing field. If someone intentionally breaches the rules, there should be a higher bar for them to pass. However, we should bear in mind that a planning system with too much rigidity can often cause problems for those who stumble across the line or did not necessarily understand the rules in the first place, which can happen with ordinary domestic planning applications. I would be more than happy for him to submit that as part of the consultation. His second point has slipped my mind.

Oliver Heald: It was about the local plan having considered need, been approved and then, within weeks, been impugned.

Kit Malthouse: I will come on to this in a moment, but, as my right hon. and learned Friend will know, along with all elements of a local plan, five-year supply is often the subject of legal challenge and challenge through the planning appeals process. I have consistently said to local authorities on all types of housing that if they want to be bulletproof on planning, they should aspire to a supply beyond five years. Too many authorities spend a lot of time in court arguing about whether they are at 5.1 or 4.8, but if they plan their area with authority and perspective—even as far out as 10 or 15 years—there is no argument to be had, particularly if it has been evidenced through the local plan process and supported by a planning inspector.
We want to ensure that local authorities use their powers to full effect and draw on good practice across the country and at county and district level. That can include ways in which public bodies can more effectively work with the police, neighbouring authorities and the travelling and wider communities—for example on welfare issues and clarifying roles and responsibilities, to move unauthorised encampments on efficiently and successfully.
We will in due course create a power to place this guidance on a statutory footing, to ensure that all local authorities are following this advice and using their powers effectively. Our package of support for local authorities includes a commitment to make up to £1.5 million of funding available to local authorities to support planning enforcement. The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government will publish details of the fund and how to bid shortly. Alongside that, the Government will continue to keep local authorities’ powers in this area under review, following the proposals to reform police powers and where there are deliberate and repeated breaches of planning.
While we acknowledge that Government still have work to do on the issues associated with unauthorised encampments, I would like to reiterate the importance of appropriate levels of site provision provided by local authorities. The planning policy for Traveller sites requires local planning authorities to produce their own assessment of needs for Traveller sites in their area, to meet the needs and expected needs of the travelling community in the same way they would for the settled community, as my right hon. and learned Friend pointed out. However, when assessing the suitability of sites in rural or semi-rural settings, local planning authorities should ensure that the scale of such sites does not dominate the nearest settled community. The Government have committed to produce guidance on the concentration of sites and have made clear that the Secretary of State will be prepared to review cases where concerns are raised that there is too high a concentration of authorised Traveller sites in one location.
I would like to relay to the House our ongoing work on enforcement against unauthorised encampments, as I am aware that this has been an area of particular concern to many Members across the House, including those who have attended previous debates. As I mentioned, the Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond (Yorks), has outlined this in previous debates, so I will try to keep my summary brief.
From listening to our consultation responses on the matter, we have identified a set of measures to extend powers available to the police, to enable unauthorised encampments to be tackled more effectively. Those include our commitment to seek parliamentary approval to amend sections 61 and 62A of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. The Home Office will soon launch a public consultation on the specific nature of these measures, to take the proposals forward.

Oliver Heald: The Minister is being very generous in giving way. I was on the Committee in 1994 that considered the Bill, which introduced the five caravan rule. That has been excellent, and the Government might want to reduce it to three. But of course, that is all about moving on trespassers in encampments that are unauthorised for that reason. This debate is about  land that is owned by the developer where all the planning laws are being ignored. Is there anything more he can say about toughening up on that and ensuring that people cannot drive a coach and horses through the planning laws?

Kit Malthouse: As I said earlier, I am keen for us to strengthen the measures that can be taken against intentional unauthorised development, on which my right hon. and learned Friend is very focused, and rightly so, but the process by which we get there means that we have to go through a consultation, which we will be doing shortly. I hope that both he and my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford) will submit to that consultation whatever measures they think are appropriate.
I think it fair to say that on this issue, given the interest of a large number of Members, the Government have listened and announced a comprehensive package, which will be implemented over the next few months—as my right hon. and learned Friend will know, the wheels of Government often grind slowly—so that in time for next summer, when there will be an uptick in activity, we will have measures in place that will not only allow local authorities to enforce sensibly, but encourage them to provide more transit sites to which Traveller communities can legitimately be moved.

Paul Beresford: As part of the consultation, will the Minister take it from me that we would like him to consider the ability for local authorities to step in quickly and put in place a legally binding stop notice on the development as the trucks are driving in, the caravans and kids are arriving and the green belt is being destroyed?

Kit Malthouse: I certainly share my hon. Friend’s aspiration for local authorities to be able to move extremely quickly in these circumstances, and a lot of the measures that we are putting in place are intended to encourage them to do exactly that, with authority and in the safe knowledge that they are acting within the law. However, it is also critical that they have a legitimate place to which they can move Traveller communities, so in my view the provision of transit sites  is one of the key issues. In my constituency, where we have the same issues—not necessarily with encampments, but certainly with summer visitors—unfortunately we do not have a transit site, and I have talked to my local authority about providing one so that those people who do arrive in Andover every summer can be moved somewhere legitimately and swiftly. I think that the two issues go together.
I would like to end by briefly updating Members on the work that the Government are doing on outcomes for Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities, which my right hon. and learned Friend quite rightly raised. We are committed to continuing to address the serious disparities faced by these communities. On almost every measure, those communities are significantly worse off than the general population. The Government have been working to improve their outcomes, but we recognise that we need to go further. That is why we recently announced that the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government will lead the development of a cross-Government strategy to improve their outcomes. We will work closely with other Departments, including the Race Disparity Unit within the Cabinet Office, the Department for Education, the Department of Health and Social Care and the Home Office, to develop the strategy. The strategy will seek to tackle the inequalities faced by these communities across a range of outcomes highlighted by the race disparity audit, including housing, education and health.
I would like to conclude by thanking those Members who have participated in this important debate. The Government have listened to Members’ concerns and are progressing on the commitments made in our response to the consultation and on the wider issue of unauthorised development and encampments. I hope that over the next few months all those Members will participate in the various consultations that will appear, so that we can reach a settled policy around which we can unite in solving the problem, while improving the lives of Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities.
Question put and agreed to.
House adjourned.